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 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, they both utilize means for claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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 1-2, 4-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20220171064 (hereinafter Thayer).
Regarding Claim 1, Thayer discloses a method comprising:
emitting light from a laser emission source (412, see FIG. 4) into a body of water (420);
receiving a reflection of the light at a detector (first and second detectors 435 / 436); and
determining, based on a Doppler-shifted frequency of the reflection of the light ([0125] describes how the lidar system using heterodyne detection, which is known to provide position and velocity based on doppler shift), one of:
a speed of a current in the body of water; or
a speed of an object in a body of water ([0123] describes how lidar returns are used to sense the speed and/or heading of detected objects).
Regarding Claim 2, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising passing the reflection of the light through a spectral filter (spectral filter 433).
Regarding Claim 4, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising passing the reflection of the light through a polarizing filter (polarizing filter 434).
Regarding Claim 5, Thayer discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the polarizing filter is coincident with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source or crossed with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source ([0155] describes how polarizing filter 434 is configured to pass light consistent with light emitted from the laser emission source that is reflected off a surface of a body of water).
Regarding Claim 6, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
passing a first portion of the reflection of the light through a first polarizing filter that is coincident with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source (a first portion of the light goes through an upper surface of polarizing beam splitter 434 that is analogous to the first polarizing filter.); and
passing a second portion of the reflection of the light through a second polarizing filter that is crossed with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source (a second portion of the light oes through a right-facing surface of polarizing beam splitter 434. The right-facing surface of the polarizing beam splitter 434 is analogous to the second polarizing filter. See [0155] describing how this configuration allows for the first and second portions to be cross-polarized).
Regarding Claim 7, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising focusing the reflection of the light on the detector with a telescope (telescope 431).
Regarding Claim 8, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the light has a wavelength from 200 nm to 800 nm ([0247] describes the laser needing to emit light in the blue-green part of the spectrum, generally understood to cover a range of wavelengths from 450 – 560nm).
Regarding Claim 9, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the light has a wavelength of about 532 nm ([0161] describes a wavelength of 532nm being used).
Regarding Claim 10, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the laser emission source is an Nd:YAG laser ([0261] describes the use of a Nd:YAG laser).
Regarding Claim 11, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the light from the laser emission source is pulsed light ([0125] describes the system as emitting pulsed polarized light).
Regarding Claim 13, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the light from the laser emission source is one of continuous light and single frequency light ([0101] describes how the laser can take the form of a continuous wave laser).
Regarding Claim 14, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein emitting the light from the laser emission source into the body of water comprises passing the light through a surface of the water (FIG. 1 shows this configuration in which light 108 passes through a surface 120 of body of water 116).
Regarding Claim 15, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein emitting the light from the laser emission source into the body of water comprises immersing an outlet of the laser emission source into the body of water ([0116] describes how the lidar system can be equipped on an underwater vehicle, where emitted light would exit the vehicle through an immersed outlet).
Regarding Claim 16, Thayer discloses a system comprising:
a laser emission source (412, see FIG. 4) that is configured to emit light into a body of water (116 and 420);
a detector (detectors 435/436) that is configured to receive a reflection of the light; and
a computing device (processor 443) that is in communication with the detector,
wherein the computing device is configured to determine, based on a Doppler-shifted frequency of the reflection of the light ([0125] describes how the lidar system using heterodyne detection, which is known to provide position and velocity based on doppler shift), one of:
a speed of a current in the body of water; or
a speed of an object in a body of water ([0123] describes how lidar returns are used to sense the speed and/or heading of detected objects).
Regarding Claim 17, Thayer discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the laser emission source has an outlet that is immersible in water (([0116] describes how the lidar system can be equipped on an underwater vehicle, where emitted light would exit the vehicle through an immersed outlet. Examiner notes that almost anything is immersible in water).
Regarding Claim 18, Thayer discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the light has a wavelength from 200 nm to 800 nm ([0247] describes the laser needing to emit light in the blue-green part of the spectrum, generally understood to cover a range of wavelengths from 450 – 560nm).
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 3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of US PG PUB 20210255293 (hereinafter Kryvobok).
Regarding Claim 3, Thayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
splitting the light from the laser emission source into a first portion and a second portion ([0125] describes how the lidar system using heterodyne detection, which uses a reference signal for distance measurement. Thayer is silent as to whether the reference is signal is generated by splitting off a portion of the laser emission or using a separate local oscillator to generate the reference signal); and directing the first portion of the light from the laser emission source to the detector (Thayer teaches the implementation of heterodyne detection where a reference signal would be routed to the detector),
wherein the reflection of the light comprises a reflection of the second portion of the light from the laser emission source (FIG. 4 of Thayer shows how light reflected from the target is routed to one detector 435 or 436).
Kryvobok specifically teaches splitting light from the laser emission source into a first portion and a second portion (see beam splitter 206 in FIG. 2) and directing the first portion of the light from the laser emission source to the detector (see mirror 214 in FIG. 2).
Kryvobok and Thayer both describe LIDAR systems optimized for underwater usage. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to implement the heterodyne LIDAR configuration taught by Thayer using the beam splitter configuration taught by Kryvobok as doing so alleviates the need to provide a separate local oscillator to generate the reference signal.
Regarding Claim 19, Thayer discloses a system comprising:
a laser emission source (412, see FIG. 4) that is configured to emit light into a body of water, wherein the light has a wavelength from 200 nm to 800 nm ([0247] describes the laser needing to emit light in the blue-green part of the spectrum, generally understood to cover a range of wavelengths from 450 – 560nm);
means for splitting the light from the laser emission source into a first portion and a second portion ([0125] describes how the lidar system using heterodyne detection, which uses a reference signal for distance measurement. Thayer is silent as to whether the reference is signal is generated by splitting off a portion of the laser emission or using a separate local oscillator to generate the reference signal);
a detector that is configured to receive a reflection of the light (detectors 435/436);
means for directing the first portion of the light from the laser emission source to the detector, wherein the reflection of the light comprises a reflection of the second portion of the light from the laser emission source (Thayer is also silent as to how the reference signal would be routed back to the detector);
means for passing the reflection of the light through a polarizing filter (; and
a computing device that is in communication with the detector, wherein the computing device is configured to determine, based on a Doppler-shifted frequency of the reflection of the light ([0125] describes how the lidar system using heterodyne detection, which is known to provide position and velocity based on doppler shift), one of:
a speed of a current in the body of water; or
a speed of an object in a body of water ([0123] describes how lidar returns are used to sense the speed and/or heading of detected objects).
Kryvobok specifically teaches splitting light from the laser emission source into a first portion and a second portion (see beam splitter 206 in FIG. 2 of Kryvobok) and directing the first portion of the light from the laser emission source to the detector (see mirror 214 in FIG. 2).
Kryvobok and Thayer both describe LIDAR systems optimized for underwater usage. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to implement the heterodyne LIDAR configuration taught by Thayer using the beam splitter configuration taught by Kryvobok as doing so alleviates the need to provide a separate local oscillator to generate the reference signal.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Thayer and Kryvobok teaches the system of claim 19, further comprising:
means for passing a first portion of the reflection of the light through a first polarizing filter that is coincident with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source (a first portion of the light goes through an upper surface of polarizing beam splitter 434 that is analogous to the first polarizing filter); and
means for passing a second portion of the reflection of the light through a second polarizing filter that is crossed with a polarization of the light from the laser emission source (a second portion of the light goes through a right-facing surface of polarizing beam splitter 434. The right-facing surface of the polarizing beam splitter 434 is analogous to the second polarizing filter. See [0155] describing how this configuration allows for the first and second portions to be cross-polarized).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thayer in view of US PG PUB 20180246137 (hereinafter Heidrich).
Regarding Claim 12, Thayer discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to teach determining a location at which the speed of the current in the body of water is measured (Thayer describes determining the velocity of nearby objects in the water but is silent as to whether or how a current in the body of water would be measured)
Heidrich teaches determining a location at which the speed of the current in the body of water is measured (FIG. 3 and [0019] of Heidrich describes the use of lasers to obtain a three dimensional three component velocity measurement of particles moving within a flow volume).
Heidrich and Thayer both describe LIDAR systems optimized for underwater measurements. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Thayer to incorporate the flow analysis teachings of Heidrich. Heidrich at [0004] specifically suggests the use of this type of sensing for underwater vehicles as unsteady flows and turbulence are very common in the underwater domain.
Conclusion
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