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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
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.
FIG. 3 is objected to because it is an incomplete representation of these components with respect to the rest of the claimed invention. Simply presenting labeled boxes for these components does not indicate their functionality with respect to each other or how they function in the larger context of the invention. For example, the specification discloses processing circuitry including composite circuits, processors, and FPGAs (Paragraph [0038]) and software elements including CPUs and RAM (Paragraph [0039])). The drawing only indicates that they are merely present and do not contribute any further understanding of the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to because:
a minor informality was found in FIG. 2D: "Pulse Loop Count M Number of Delayed Optical Paths" should have some separator, either "Pulse Loop Count M / Number of Delayed Optical Paths" or "Pulse Loop Count M or Number of Delayed Optical Paths".
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. However, in view of expediting prosecution, the following informalities are further objected to:
[0010]: "intensity modulated pulse" is missing a closed quotations mark
[0011]: "an intensity modulated pulse T" should read "an intensity modulated pulse T1" in reference to FIG. 1C
[0014]: "circuities 100a" is misspelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara et al. (JP5390681B1) in view of Leuthold (US20020003652A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakahara teaches:
A laser radar device comprising:
a seed-light source to generate pulsed light ([0091]: “An optical pulse 71 as a seed is introduced into the closed-loop optical circuit 70 by the optical input unit 61”);
an intensity modulated signal generator to generate an intensity modulated signal ([0090]: “the light intensity modulator 64 is used as the optical loop gain modulation means”); and
an intensity modulated pulse generator to generate intensity modulated pulsed light on a basis of the pulsed light and the intensity modulated signal ([0093]: “The loop circulating optical pulse 72… circulates in the closed loop optical circuit 70, is optically amplified by the optical amplifier 63, is modulated by the optical intensity modulator 64”), wherein
the intensity modulated signal generator includes a branching ratio adjuster ([0064]: “the branching ratio (ratio of straight output and cross output) of the 2 × 2 type optical switch 11 is instantaneously controlled”) and a delayed optical path adjuster ([0092]: “The control light pulse 74 is delay-adjusted by a delay adjustment line 66 (delay adjustment means)”),
the branching ratio adjuster outputs a branching-ratio adjustment signal to determine a branching ratio in the variable branching-ratio optical-path branch ([0013]: “the branching ratio (reintroduction in the closed-loop optical circuit 120) of the 2 × 2 type optical switch 101 controlled in accordance with the optical gain of the optical amplifier 102 set in advance and the timing of the loop circulating optical pulse 122 by the dynamic control signal 126”), and
the variable branching-ratio optical-path branch outputs one branched light to a transmission-side optical system and outputs remaining branched light to the delayed optical path on a basis of the branching-ratio adjustment signal ([0022]: “An optical branching means for reintroducing as an optical pulse…and bifurcating the loop circulating optical pulse, outputting one as an optical pulse train, and looping the other into the closed loop optical circuit”).
Nakahara does not teach, whereas Leuthold teaches:
the intensity modulated pulse generator includes an optical path coupler, a variable branching-ratio optical-path branch, and a delayed optical path, which are coupled in a loop shape ([15]: “a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) 110 monolithically integrated with a delayed interference loop 120 which may be formed by a tunable or fixed, but asymmetric splitting ratio coupler 130 and a coupler 140”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical pulse train generator as taught by Nakahara with a closed loop intensity modulator consisting of a looped delay, optical coupler, and a variable splitter as taught by Leuthold with a reasonable expectation of success. This feature is known in the art for optical systems and its incorporation would have the predictable result of simplifying the optical circuit of a laser radar device by reducing the overall number of components.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nakahara further teaches:
The laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein
the delayed optical path adjuster generates a delayed optical path control signal to adjust a degree of delay or a delayed optical path length in the delayed optical path, and
in the delayed optical path, the degree of delay or the delayed optical path length is changed on a basis of the delayed optical path control signal ([0092]: “The control light pulse 74 is delay-adjusted by a delay adjustment line 66 (delay adjustment means). The control optical pulse 74 delay-adjusted by the delay adjustment line 66 is converted into a pulsed electric signal (control electric pulse) by the control electric signal generation circuit 67, and then the optical pulse 72 that circulates the closed-loop optical circuit 70 is obtained.”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara and Leuthold as applied to Claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Toyoda et al. (JP2019114719A).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nakahara further teaches:
The laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein
a seed-light pulse width is variable ([0054]: “the pulse width of each output light pulse can be set independently”).
Nakahara and Leuthold do not teach, whereas Toyoda teaches:
The laser radar device according to claim 1, wherein
the seed-light source generates the pulsed light by Q-switching, mode-locking, pulse excitation, or pulsing continuous wave laser light with an optical switch ([0023]: “The wavelength swept light source of Embodiment 1 is an FDML [Fourier domain mode lock] laser”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical pulse train generator as taught by Nakahara and looped delay circuit as taught by Leuthold together with the mode-locked light source and the variable optical delay path length as taught by Toyoda with a reasonable expectation of success. These features are known in the art for optical systems and their incorporation would have the predictable result to more efficiently generate shorter light pulses with an FDML laser and ensuring stability by controlling the optical path length.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Toyoda further teaches:
The laser radar device according to claim 2, wherein
a value of the delayed optical path length can be changed by an external operation ([0045]: “In Embodiments 1 and 2, a fiber stretcher 180 was used as a means to adjust the optical path length, but instead of a fiber stretcher, you can also use a delay path with a piezo element, a refractive index-variable waveguide, a delay path in a free-space optical system, or a variable delay path caused by temperature changes”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 is allowable for disclosing “the branching ratio adjuster which calculates, on a basis of optical power of a k-th pulse in a pulse train and a sum of optical power of (k+1)-th to last pulses in the pulse train, the branching ratio on condition that a number of a loop count in the variable branching-ratio optical-path branch is k”. The prior art of record does not explicitly teach nor render obvious the limitation or combinations thereof in the claims.
Claims 6 and 7 depend on Claim 3 and are allowable for their dependency as such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukasawa (JP3637200B2) teaches a method of calculating a branching ratio in an optical path based on a number in a loop count, but does not specifically teach according to the formula as described in Claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C NATHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0331. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights