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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant and listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
29 December 2023
13 February 2024
17 April 2024
26 June 2025
Attorneys of Record
The examiner notes for the record that as of the date of this office action, no list of Attorneys of Record has been submitted by the applicant.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference “1408” which appears in Fig. 14
Reference “2020” which appears in Fig. 20
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification:
Reference “402” is mentioned on page 15
Reference “602” is mentioned on pg. 16, first paragraph
Reference “120” is shown on some figures (such as Fig. 12) but not on others (such as Figs. 9 or 10).
Reference “134” which is mentioned in reference to Fig. 15
Reference “1312” which is mentioned on pg. 18, second paragraph
Reference “1314” which is mentioned on pg. 18, second paragraph
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because there exists a combination of instances where a reference character has been used to designate two parts, and where two reference characters have been used to designate a single part. The following issues have been noted, but this is not an exhaustive list:
“132” is used to reference “the digital processor”, “signal processing component”, and “pseudo-random bit sequence”.
“112” seems to be used to reference “pseudo-random bit sequence” in the figures but is not mentioned in the specification.
“110” and “120” are both used to reference “local oscillator”.
“110” and “102” are both used to reference “an electro-optic modulator”.
“102” is used to reference “beam expanders” in the Figures, but is also referenced as “106” in the specification. “106” is also the “optical isolator”.
Both “128” and “118” are used to reference the incoming/outgoing light.
Both “130” and “120” are used to reference the local oscillator.
Both “116” and “104” are used to reference the fiber spools.
Both “114” and “126” are used to reference the “N port fiber coupler”.
Both “116” and “130” are used to reference “balanced photodetectors”.
Pg. 17, paragraph 2 references “130” as balanced photodetectors, but pg. 14 references balanced photodetectors as “116”
Pg. 18, paragraph 3 refers to “128” as dual quadrature receivers but page 14 refers to “128” as a 90 degree coupler, and page 13 refers to “128” as the outgoing/incoming light.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 13, line 23 reads “on path acts”, and should read “one path acts”.
Pg. 16, second paragraph reads “In this embodiment, t (130). he number of channels…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 13-14 refers to “a portion of the transmitted optical signal scattered and/or reflected by the surface, the received portion of the optical signal…”, and while it is clear these portions of modulated signal are within the same optical pathway from the specification, the verbiage is inconsistent. A suggested amendment for clarity would be “a portion of the transmitted modulated optical signal scattered and/or reflected by the surface, the received portion of the modulated optical signal…”.
Claim 8, lines 5-6 refer to “for each of the transmitted optical signals”. If this refers to the same signals from Claim 1, this should read “for each of the transmitted modulated optical signals.”
Claim 8, line 7 refers to ”a portion of the corresponding transmitted range-finding optical signal”, but a transmitted portion has not been introduced yet, so this should read “a portion of a corresponding transmitted range-finding optical signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8, in line 12, refers to “corresponding to the received signal”, however there are several ‘received signals’ discussed within claim 8, and it is unclear which received signal this is referring to. Claims 1 and 8 introduce “the received portion of the optical signal”, “the optical signals received by the optical receivers”, and received “range-finding signal data”. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted to be referencing the received range-finding signal data, as the limitation within Claim 8 is referencing processing the range-finding signal data.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12-13, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stochino (US 20200003900 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Stochino anticipates a LiDAR apparatus and a method of execution by a signal processing component of a LiDAR apparatus, including:
a laser configured to generate an optical signal (Fig. 5B, laser (110B));
modulation components configured to receive the optical signal as an input and to output at least two corresponding modulated optical signals at respective output ports, wherein each modulated optical signal is modulated by a corresponding pseudo-random bit sequence ([0060], [0089]; Figs. 5B, 5C where optical synthesizer circuits (115B,C) receive input from laser and output multiple signals via transceivers/probes, where each signal is coded with random or pseudo-random code sequences), and:
(i) the optical signals have respective different delays such that the modulations do not overlap in time ([0088] - [0091]; Fig. 5b where delay line (200B) causes a different delay compared to other paths and which may cause signals to be orthogonal, or non-overlapping, to one another);
or (ii) the pseudo-random bit sequences have low cross-correlation ([0088] - [0091]; where signals may be orthogonal to one another);
for each of the at least two modulated optical signals, a corresponding optical transmitter configured to transmit the corresponding modulated optical signal towards a corresponding surface spaced from the LiDAR apparatus by a corresponding distance, and a corresponding optical receiver configured to receive a portion of the transmitted optical signal scattered and/or reflected by the surface, the received portion of the optical signal having a phase shift and/or Doppler shifted angular frequency due to radial motion of the LiDAR apparatus relative to the surface ([0088] - [0091], [0100]; Figs. 3, 5B, where each probe has a transceiver (120B/130B) which direct signals towards objects in the environment and collect reflected signals which may be shifted in phase or frequency by the Doppler effect);
at least one photodetector configured to receive the optical signals received by the optical receivers, interfered with a reference beam, and to generate a corresponding output signal ([0063] - [0065], [0088]; Fig. 5B, optical sensor (160B) via fiber coupler (193B) receives local signals from FC (170B) and receiver (130B) and senses interference between reference and returned beams of similar coding);
at least one analogue to digital converter configured to generate a digital signal representing the output signal from the at least one photodetector ([0016] - [0018], [0063]; Fig. 2. where LIDAR system's central unit (10) can include analog/digital conversion after the probe/receiving optics/electronics);
and a digital signal processing component configured to process the digital signal to generate LiDAR data representing the distances to the surfaces and/or relative velocities of the surface(s) with respect to the apparatus ([0016] - [0018], [0063]; Fig. 2. where LIDAR system's central unit (10) can include a processor which is enabled for homodyne and/or heterodyne determination of distances and/or relative velocities of objects).
Regarding claim 2, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the respective optical transmitters are arranged to transmit the respective modulated optical signals in different directions to enable navigation, telemetry, and positioning of a vehicle to which the apparatus is mounted ([0006], [0015], [0058]; Figs. 1, 3 where each transceiver probe (20) may receive light from the laser source in the central unit (10), and emit in different directions and/or locations around the automobile (1)).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
each optical transmitter and corresponding optical receiver constitute a corresponding optical transceiver, and
the optical transceivers are beam expanders, telescopes, and/or off-axis reflectors ([0064]; Fig. 5B, where transmitter (120B) and receiver (130B) are co-located and can be combined with shared lenses, mirrors, or other components).
Regarding claim 5, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the pseudo- random bit sequences have low cross-correlation ([0088] - [0091]; where signals may be orthogonal to one another).
Regarding claim 6, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the optical signals have respective different delays such that the modulations do not overlap in time ([0088] - [0091]; Fig. 5b where delay line (200B) causes a different delay compared to other paths and which may cause signals to be non-overlapping to one another).
Regarding claim 7, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
each modulated optical signal is modulated by the same pseudo-random bit sequence ([0088] - [0091]; Fig. 5B, where laser (110B) emits light and a code is applied to each of the first and second portions of the initial beam of light emitted by the laser 110B).
Regarding claim 9, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the different delays result from respective different optical path lengths between the output ports and the optical transmitters ([0088] - [0091]; Fig. 5b where delay line (200B) causes a different delay compared to other paths).
Regarding claim 12, Stochino anticipates the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the different delays result from using different pseudo-random bit sequence codes for each delay ([0061], [0065], [0089]; where the system can impose different types of codes causing different delays on the signal portions).
Regarding claim 16, Stochino anticipates the method of claim 13, including controlling respective optical modulators to modulate the optical signals with the respective different delays ([0088] - [0091]).
Regarding claims 18-20, Stochino anticipates
at least one computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a LiDAR apparatus, cause the at least one processor to execute the method of claim 13,
at least one non-volatile storage medium storing FPGA configuration data that, when used to configure an FPGA, causes the FPGA to execute the method of claim 13, and
at least one non-volatile storage medium storing processor-executable instructions and FPGA configuration data that, when respectively executed by at least one processor of a LiDAR apparatus and used to configure an FPGA, causes the at least one processor and FPGA to execute the method of claim 13 ([0110] - [0115]; Fig. 8. where LIDAR system's central unit (10) can include a computer system (300) which may include a processor (304), memory (306), an ASIC or FPGA (not shown) where when executed in combination with the computer system causes or programs the computer system to operate as a special-purpose machine).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stochino (US 20200003900 A1) in view of Crouch et al. (hereinafter Crouch, US 20190011558 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Stochino teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein
the distances to the surface(s) are unconstrained, and the modulation components are further configured to output, from each of the output ports, and prior to outputting the modulated optical signals, a corresponding range-finding optical signal modulated by a corresponding pseudo-random bit sequence ([0108] - [0109]; Figs. 9-11 which show differing methods of emission and distance determination, where specifically Fig. 10 shows the two separate beam portions which have been modulated accordingly);
and the digital signal processing component is further configured to, for each of the transmitted optical signals:
(i) receive range-finding signal data representing a portion of the corresponding transmitted range-finding optical signal scattered and/or reflected by the corresponding surface and received by the corresponding optical receiver (Fig. 10, where each portion is directed into the environment and the reflected beam received via the corresponding receiver);
(ii) process the range-finding signal data to generate corresponding frequency compensated signal data representing a frequency compensated signal corresponding to the received signal, but in which the Doppler shifted angular frequency has been removed ([0063] - [0077], where the Doppler shifts of the returned signals may be canceled out).
Stochino does not explicitly teach encoding the pseudo-random code into the compensated signal amplitudes.
Crouch teaches a method and system for Doppler correction of broadband LIDAR, where the system includes modulating an optical signal from a laser, receiving a returned optical signal and processing the return signal wherein a corresponding pseudo-random bit sequence is encoded into an amplitude of the frequency compensated signal and (iii) correlate the frequency compensated signal with a template of the corresponding pseudo-random bit sequence to generate a measurement of the distance of the corresponding surface from the LiDAR apparatus, wherein the different delays are calculated from the distance measurements. ([0051], [0066], [0074] - [0076], [0079] – [0084]; where the system may correspond the pseudo-random code and returned heterodyne signal or bits could be compared or cross correlated with any portion of transmitted bits from the prior transmission history to determine distances and ranges may be related to correlation peaks, and delay may be determined from the Doppler shift information.)
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Stochino to incorporate the teachings of Crouch to encode the pseudo-random code into the compensated signal amplitudes with a reasonable expectation of success. To one of ordinary skill in the art, these steps are additionally known to be necessary in determining distance from phase encoded signals, and additionally Crouch teaches that Doppler shift is used to correct the cross correlation calculation, allowing for a peak to be more readily found, and range to an object or surface then can be more readily determined ([0046] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Stochino teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but does not teach specifically that the different delays are due to differing electrical path lengths.
Crouch teaches a method and system for Doppler correction of broadband LIDAR, where the system includes modulating an optical signal from a laser, receiving a returned optical signal and mixing, during a first time interval, the returned optical signal with a first returned signal, where the modulated signals may have different delays result from respective different electrical path lengths between a pseudo-random bit sequence generator and respective optical modulators of the modulation and delay components ([0065]; where known delays may be introduced by optical components, time delays within a frequency shifting device/modulator or a combination).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Stochino to incorporate the teachings of Crouch to assign delays to the system based on the electrical component delays with a reasonable expectation of success. Crouch discusses that differing a signal delay method offers more, or less, flexibility in the system and can be applied to the system’s emitted signal delays or to delays in the reference (local oscillator) optical path and can be used to fix path length mismatch, to produce a differing time delay or a combination of both ([0065]).
Claims 14 and 15 are similarly rejected to claim 8, as each include limitations previously discussed therein.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stochino (US 20200003900 A1) in view of Feigin (US 20140049418 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Stochino teaches the apparatus of claim 6, but does not teach specifically that the different delays are due to generating the pseudo-random codes at different times.
Feigin teaches a system and embodiments for ground penetrating radar (GPR) which utilizes a variable delay generator to create modified waveforms, where different delays may result from generating the pseudo-random bit sequence generator at different times ([0047]; where time delays for transmitted signals may be due to different, random delays in the triggering or generating events).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Stochino to incorporate the teachings of Feigin to assign delays to the system based on the delayed creation of the pseudo-random bit sequence with a reasonable expectation of success. Feigin notes that the use of random or pseudo-random timing triggers introduces an intentional form of noise, which avoids producing discrete spectral lines in a radiated signal which is RADAR, in Feigin’s case, but this would equally apply to a LIDAR system ([0009], [0028]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stochino (US 20200003900 A1) in view of Waheed et al. (hereinafter Waheed, US 20070189431 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Stochino teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the processing includes demodulating the digital signal data using a correspondingly delayed digital signal template to generate a first demodulated output, and demodulating the first demodulated output using a phase locked loop to generate a second demodulated output ([0102]; where the received reflected beams and transmitted beams are demodulated to remove the code).
Stochino does not explicitly teach using a cascaded integrator comb filter for demodulation or use of a phase-locked loop.
Waheed teaches an apparatus for and method of delay alignment in a closed loop two-point modulation all digital phase locked loop (ADPLL), where signals may be demodulated and processed using a phase-locked loop to generate a second demodulated output ([0017] - [0019]), and using a cascaded integrator comb filter to decimate the second demodulated output by an integer multiple of a code length in samples ([0082]; where a cascaded integrator comb (CIC) is used to progressively form a fine resolution based on the clock rate and form time alignment between amplitude and phase of signals.)
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Stochino to incorporate the teachings of Waheed, where the signals are processed to demodulate by using a phase locked loop (PLL) and a cascaded integrator comb with a reasonable expectation of success. Use of PLLs is known in data communication systems as well as LIDAR systems which require demodulation, such as FMCW systems or Doppler based homodyne/heterodyne systems. As Waheed notes use of the CIC allows for a highly fine resolution on signals post-processing, specifically noting that clock and signal alignment is accurate up to a few nanoseconds ([0082]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kersey et al. (US 6285806 B1) teaches a fiber optic sensor array with multiple segments, where the segments are separated by weak reflectors such as fiber optic Bragg grating, where the system generates a pseudo-random bit sequence to modulate the signal where each has a differing time delay.
Crouch et al. (US 20180224547 A1) teaches a system and method for Doppler correction of phase-encoded LIDAR includes a code indicating a sequence of phases for a phase-encoded signal, and determining a first Fourier transform of the signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights