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 . Claims 1-6 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawings and the rejections made under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome and are accordingly withdrawn. A new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is made in light of the amendment to claim 2.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/26 regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to be arguing that 20210055390 (hereinafter LaChapelle) does not get into sufficient detail of how post-processing operations would be performed on an FMCW variation of the disclosed system and consequently that the current rejections should be withdrawn. In particular, Applicant argues that the alleged failure of the frequency detection circuit 600 to teach a velocity or directionality calculation means that LaChapelle does not anticipate the teachings of claim 1.
Examiner disagrees because at bare minimum none of the pending claims require any post processing steps requiring calculation of position or velocity. The previous rejection pointed to frequency detection circuit 600 as the most likely location for velocity determination in an FMCW version of LaChapelle since conventional FMCW Lidar systems perform speed determinations by measuring doppler or frequency shift based on a beat signal. However, since claim 1 only requires detection at a detection unit of information on position, speed and directionality by receiving light that has been subject to an interferometer (see FIG. 22 and detection unit 2220 from the instant specification). As indicated previously, [0076] of LaChapelle describes how an FMCW version of the described embodiments involves mixing the reflected and local oscillator beams to generate a beat signal. Since the beat signal includes doppler data when a detected target is moving closer to or farther away from the LIDAR system and since doppler data includes speed and directionality information the claims as amended are still anticipated by LaChapelle.
Examiner notes that the invention is claimed at a very high level of generality. Narrowing the claimed subject matter could help push prosecution forward. For example, the interferometer configurations in the instant application do not appear to be taught by LaChapelle.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application 10-2023-0125349 filed in Korea on 9/20/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The USPTO received a document on 2/20/2025 informing us of a failure to electronically retrieve the application from the priority document exchange program.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, it is claimed that a light source receives and detects phase noise. [0064] and [0077] of the instant specification makes it clear that it is the light source unit 110 that includes the functionality for performing this function and more specifically a stabilization unit that includes an interferometer. This rejection could be addressed by amending claim 2 to change light source to “a light source unit” or “a second interferometer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20210055390 (hereinafter LaChapelle).
Regarding Claim 1, LaChapelle teaches a Doppler LiDAR apparatus (LIDAR system 100 is described in [0074] as being an FMCW lidar system) comprising:
a first light source (450a, see FIG. 12) configured to output light having a uniform frequency ([0149] describes 450a and 450b as being frequency locked) for detecting a speed of a target;
a second light source (450b) configured to output light for detecting a directivity of a moving target, the second light source outputting the light having a preset frequency difference from a frequency of the light output by the first light source ([0148] describes a frequency offset between the light output by 450a and 450b of 1 kHz or 1 MHz);
an optical system configured to adjust a path or state of the light output by the first light source (scanner 120, see FIG. 6 and [0095] describing 120’s use of scanning mirrors to move the path of the outgoing laser to cover a field of regard) to be incident on the target (target 130) and adjust a path or state of light to be output to an outside or reflected light that is reflected by the target;
an interferometer configured to make the light that is output by the second light source and the reflected light that has passed through the optical system interfere with each other (combiner 420, see FIG. 6 and [0096] 420 is operable as an interferometer by causing reflected beam 135 and local oscillator beam 430 to spatially overlap and propagate coaxially to detector 340); and
a detection unit (receiver 140) configured to detect information on a distance and speed of the target by receiving the light ([0097] combined light is received and converted to an electrical signal at detector 340 & [0076] describes how the combined light includes linearly chirped light source that generate a beat signal when received at detector 340 that is known to include position, speed and directionality information) that has been subjected to interference in the interferometer (combiner 420).
Regarding Claim 3, LaChapelle teaches the Doppler LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein the preset frequency difference is a frequency within a preset error range on the basis of 50 MHz ([0148] describes a frequency offset between the light output by 450a and 450b of 1 kHz or 1 MHz, which is within / less than 50 MHz).
Regarding Claim 4, LaChapelle teaches the Doppler LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein when the target becomes close to the Doppler LiDAR apparatus, a Doppler frequency greater than a frequency of output light is introduced. ([0076] describes the use of frequency modulated signals that when reflected off the target would see in increased frequency due to doppler shift caused by the target moving closer to the sensor).
Regarding Claim 5, LaChapelle teaches the Doppler LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein when the target becomes distant from the Doppler LiDAR apparatus, a Doppler frequency smaller than a frequency of output light is introduced. ([0076] describes the use of frequency modulated signals that when reflected off the target would see a reduced frequency due to doppler shift caused by the target moving farther away from the sensor).
Regarding Claim 6, LaChapelle teaches the Doppler LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical system comprises:
a transmission-optical system (scanner 120) configured to adjust a path of the light that is output by the first light source so that the light proceeds to the target; and
a reception-optical system (mirror 115 as shown in FIG. 6) configured to adjust a path of the reflected light that is reflected by the target and that is incident from an outside so that the reflected light proceeds to the interferometer (combiner 420).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaChapelle in view of Zhang, “Laser Chirp Linearization and Phase Noise Compensation for Frequency-modulated Continuous wave LiDAR” (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding Claim 2, LaChapelle teaches the Doppler LiDAR apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first light source is configured to receive the light output by the first light source and detect phase noise included in the light output by the first light source.
Examiner notes that it is the light source unit 110 not the light source that receives and detects phase noise and more specifically the stabilization unit that includes an interferometer.
Zhang teaches the use of an interferometer in an FMCW LiDAR device configured to receive the light output by a light source and detect phase noise included in the light output by the light source. In particular, figure 2.1 on page 7 of Zhang shows the use of a monitoring interferometer (labeled MZI) to detect phase noise in a laser source by producing a beat frequency that is then extracted with a Hilbert Transform to extract a chirp signal. The extracted chirp signal is subtracted from a desired chirp signal to identify phase noise.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the monitoring interferometer into the laser configuration taught by LaChapelle in order to reduce phase noise allowing for a range extension of more than 250m as pointed out in the Abstract on page 1 of Zhang.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights