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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: phase modulators 134a, 134b as found on page 21 and 25 of the specification. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one phase modulator positioned in path of beam directed towards reference arms of said first and second interferometer loops for modulating the phase of the respective reference beams in claim 11, the system on a chip section of claim 21, the whole system on a chip in claim 25, and the coherence length/linewidth measurement unit of claim 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 examiner notes that the objections regarding the phase modulator appear to be related to each other as per page 21 of the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “152” has been used to designate both transmitting optics towards a target in Fig. 2 and a filter in Fig. 4. 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:
The specification 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.
As a nonlimiting example, on page 26, line 27, “In this loop, on the interrogating part” should be amended to read “In this loop, only the interrogating part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21, 27, 29-31, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 1, in line 10 of the claim, the phrase “comprises at least first and second detectors” should be amended to read “comprise the at least first and second detectors” as first and second detectors are already set forth in lines 6-7 of the claim. Additionally, in line 14 of the claim, the comma should be removed after the word “wherein”.
As for claim 2, the phrase “wherein a ratio between measured signal of the at least first and second interferometer loops being indicative of range to said target object” should be amended to read “wherein a ratio between measured signals of the at least first and second interferometer loops is indicative of a range to said target object”.
As for claim 3, the phrase “wherein said at least first and second detectors being configured for providing output signal indicative of coherence term” should be amended to read “wherein said at least first and second detectors are configured for providing output signals indicative of coherence terms”.
As for claim 4, the provided limitations should be separated by a line indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i). Additionally, the phrase “in both interrogating and reference arm” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to read “in both the interrogating and reference arms”.
As for claim 11, the phrase “positioned in paths of beam directed towards reference arms” should be amended to read “positions in paths of beams directed towards reference arms” in lines 2-3 of the claim; the comma should be removed after the word “loops” in line 3 of the claim, and the phrase “the collected interfering signals in lines 4-5 should be amended to read “the detected interfering signals”.
As for claim 13, the phrase “said detected signal” in line 3 of the claim should be amended to read “said detected signals”.
As for claim 16, the phrase “analyzing variation frequency” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to read “analyzing a variation frequency”. Additionally, “a relation between power of peak frequency components of signal of the at least first and second interferometer loops” in lines 4-6 of the claim should be amended to read “a relation between power of peak frequency components of signals of the at least first and second interferometer loops”.
As for claim 17, the provided limitations should be separated by a line indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i). Additionally, the phrase “imaging optical arrangement” in line 3 of the claim should be amended to read “an imaging optical arrangement”, and the phrase “the corresponding one of the first and second first and second detector arrays” should be amended to read “the corresponding one of the first and second detector arrays”.
As for claim 21, the phrase “optical fiber section, free space propagation section, or system on a chip section” should be amended to read “an optical fiber section, a free space propagation section, or a system on a chip selection”.
As for claim 27, the phrase “positioned at output of said one or more light sources” should be amended to read “positioned at an output of said one or more light sources” in lines 2-3 of the claim. Additionally, the phrase “determine coherence level of emitted beam” in line 4 should be amended to read “determine coherence level of an emitted beam”, and in lines 4-5, the phrase “to thereby generate data oh initial coherence length of emitted beam” should be amended to read “to thereby generate data of an initial coherence length of the emitted beam”.
As for claim 29, in clause a, the phrase “providing electromagnetic (EM) beam” should be amended to read “providing an electromagnetic (EM) beam”. A semicolon should be added to the end of clause b. Finally, in the wherein clause, the phrase “wherein the method comprising” should be amended to read “wherein the method comprises”.
As for claim 30, the phrase “mutual coherence factor” in line 3 of the claim should be amended to read “mutual coherence factors”.
As for claim 31, the phrase “for determine range to said target object” in lines 3-4 of the claim should be amended to read “for determining range to said target object”.
As for claim 33, in line 4 of the claim, the phrase “and optical arrangement” should be amended to read “an optical arrangement”. In line 9 of the claim, the phrase “a detection unit” should be amended to read “the detection unit”. In lines 10-11 of the claim, the phrase “a portion of a reference beam and a portion of collected light” should be amended to read “a portion of the at least one reference beam and a portion of the collected light”. In line 11 of the claim, the phrase “and generate detection data” should be amended to read “and generating detection data”. In line 13, the word “comprise” should be amended to read “comprises”. In lines 13-16, the two wherein clauses should be separated by an indentation as per 37 CFR 1.75(i). Finally, in line 16 of the claim, the recitation of “the interrogating beams” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“(An) imaging optical arrangement for generating an interference of image of said target object . . .” in claim 17.
“A scanning unit configured for varying direction of said interrogating beam” in claim 19.
“A coherence length/linewidth measurement unit . . . configured to periodically or continuously determine coherence level of emitted beam” in claim 27.
“A splitting unit . . . configured for directing said optical illumination to form at least one reference beam and at least one interrogating beam” in claim 33.
“A light collection unit configured for collecting light . . .” in claim 33.
“A noise generating unit configured to affect coherence length of light in one of said at least two interrogating beams”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4, 17, 19, 27, and 31 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the one interferometer loop . . . the other interferometer loop" in lines 4 and 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What one interferometer loop and what other interferometer loop are being referred to here? Should this be amended to read “the first interferometer loop” and “the second interferometer loop” to match the language set forth in claim 1 and also in lines 2-3 of claim 4?
As for claim 17, the claim recites that the detection unit “comprises at least first and second detector arrays” throughout the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 17 depends, sets forth that the detection unit comprises at least first and second detectors. Does the claiming of first and second detector arrays in claim 17 mean that the detection unit includes first and second detectors and first and second detector arrays? Or are the detector arrays in claim 17 replacing the detectors of claim 1? Clarification is required. It appears as though the claim should be amended to further limit the detectors of claim 1 to be detector arrays.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "said interrogating beam" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What interrogating beam is being referred to here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 19 depends, does not set forth an interrogating beam, and as claim 1 sets forth two interrogating arms, it is implied that there would be two interrogating beams in the claimed optical system.
Claim limitation “A coherence length/linewidth measurement unit” as found in claim 27 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “a coherence length/linewidth measurement unit” is a limitation that is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the examiner turns to the specification to identify the structure associated with the claimed function of the measurement unit. However, the specification fails to provide any such structure. On page 20 of the specification, the specification only states, “One or more of the noise generators 130 and 132 may include, or be associated with, a linewidth measurement unit (not specifically shown). The linewidth measurement unit may be configured for monitoring linewidth/bandwidth of beam output from the noise generator and generate data indicative thereof. The linewidth data may be transmitted to the control circuit to provide input data indicative of coherence length lc1 and/or lc2 for the first and second interferometer loops. The coherence length data is typically stored in the control circuit for determining coherence variation parameter K as described further below.” As can be seen from the quoted portion of the specification, there is no specific structure associated with the coherence length/linewidth measurement unit. Is it a detector? A spectrometer? Some other kind of detector arrangement? Additionally, what performs the processing to generate the claimed data of the initial coherence length of the emitted beam? Is it the control circuit? Another processor? Without any guidance from the specification, the structure associated with the claimed function cannot be determined, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the coherence lengths or levels" in in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While there is antecedent basis for “the coherence lengths”, there is no antecedent basis for “the coherence levels”, as claim 29, the claim on which claim 31 depends, is silent with regards to levels. The examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “the coherence lengths” to overcome the rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for a coherence length/linewidth measurement unit, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
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.
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 1, 4, 13, 19, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haji Reza et al (2020/0359903) in view of Muenter et al (2009/0147341).
Regarding claim 1, Haji Reza (Fig. 11) discloses an optical system comprising one or more light sources 1101 providing coherent illumination of a selected wavelength range (see paragraph 0076, stating that the interrogation beam can be a modulated source of radiation including lasers, with any wavelength being used), an optical arrangement (the interferometer of Fig. 11), and a detection unit 1104, 1105; said optical arrangement comprising optical elements forming at least first and second interferometer loops, each comprising a reference arm and an interrogating arm ((see Fig. 11, which shows two reference arms that end with reference mirror 1123 and 1124, along with a measurement arm ending at sample 1128, the measurement light after reflection is split by splitter 1108; these signals wind up as beams R1, S1, R2, and S2 at the detector unit, thereby defining two interferometer loops)), said at least first and second interferometer loops being associated with corresponding at least first 1104 and second 1105 detectors of the detection unit; light propagating in said interrogating arm is directed at a target object 1128 via an output optical element 1118 and a reflection of light from said target object is collected by the same optical element; said detection unit comprises the first and second detectors 1104, 1105 configured for detection of interfering signals of the respective one of the first and second interferometer loops (detector 1104 receives beams R1 and S1; detector 1105 receives beams R2 and S2), and detection unit is configured to determine data indicative of a relation between signals detected by the at least first and second detectors (see paragraph 0053, “these combined optical signals are then processed appropriately at the detector to extract desired information”).
Haji Reza, however, fails to disclose that the light from the target object is collected by an input optical element, and that one of said first and second interferometer loops comprises a first noise generator positioned to affect light propagating in both of the corresponding reference and interrogating arms, thereby affecting coherence of light in said interferometer loops.
Regarding the input optical element, Haji Reza uses the same optical element 1118 to output light from the measurement arm of the interferometer towards the sample and to receive reflected light from the sample to send it towards the reference beams for detection. Adding an additional optical element for reception of light from the object would be a matter of adding a lens and rearranging the other optics in the measurement arm so that light reflected by the sample passes through the input optical element to be sent to the detectors. In that light, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), while it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an input optical element to the measurement arm of Haji Reza, the motivation being to avoid crosstalk between the input measurement beam and the return beam reflected by the object being measured.
Regarding the coherence of the light, Muenter (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses an interferometer that controls the coherence length of a beam in the interferometer. The measurement light beam 210A of the interferometer passes through a modulated coherence controller assembly 100A that receives a modulating RF signal 113A that includes a random noise signal 275 from random noise source 270 in order to change the coherence length of a long coherence length source 102 to a short coherence length (see paragraph 0035). The examiner notes that the coherence controller assembly controls the coherence length of the light source using a phase modulator 112 inside the coherence controller assembly (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0027). This controller assembly would be placed between splitters 1103 and 1110 in the interferometer of Haji Reza.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a first noise generator to one of the beam paths of Haji Reza as taught by Muenter in order to affect light propagating in both of the corresponding reference and interrogating arms to affect coherence of light in the interferometer loops, the motivation being to produce higher fidelity interferometer measurements by reducing sensitivity to spurious sources in the system (see Muenter abstract).
As for claim 4, the combination of Haji Reza and Muenter discloses that said interrogating arm is at least partially common between said first and second interferometer loops (the interrogating arm of Haji Reza shares a common path between splitter 1110 and splitter 1108 as seen in Fig. 11), and wherein said first noise generator is positioned to affect light propagating in said interrogating arm of the one interferometer loop and in both interrogating and reference arm of the other interferometer loop, thereby affecting coherence relation between the reference and interrogating arms of the other interferometer loop (as noted above regarding claim 1, this controller assembly of Muenter would be placed between splitters 1103 and 1110 in the interferometer of Haji Reza; the change in coherence length of the light would meet the above limitation).
As for claim 13, Haji Reza discloses a control circuit configured and operable to receive detected signals from the detection unit, said detected signals being associated with coherence terms for beams in the first and second interferometer loops (see paragraph 0016, which discloses that the extraction of relevant signal data may be performed in a relevant circuit-based processor).
As for claim 19, Haji Reza discloses a scanning unit (galvo mirrors 1125) configured for varying the direction of the interrogating beam, thereby enabling scanning of a field comprising the target object (see paragraph 0016).
As for claim 21, Haji Reza discloses that the optical arrangement comprises an optical fiber section (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 0062).
As for claim 25, while the combination of Haji Reza and Muenter discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, the combination fails to disclose configuring the whole system on a chip.
However, the examiner notes that it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the whole system of Haji Reza and Muenter onto a chip, the motivation being to make the device more compact and portable by having all of the optical elements integrated onto a single platform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 11, and 14-16 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 29-31 and 33 are allowed in view of the prior art.
The examiner notes that for claims 2-3, 11, 16, 29-31, and 33, the objections set forth above, along with the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 31, will need to be properly overcome for the claims to be fully considered allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein a ratio between measured signals of the at least first and second interferometer loops is indicative of range to said target object, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 3, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein said at least first and second detectors are configured for providing output signals indicative of coherence terms between respective beam components of the reference and interrogating arms, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, the combination of Haji Reza and Muenter fails to disclose that the detected signals are indicative of coherence terms between respective beam components.
As to claim 11, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, further comprising at least one phase modulator positioned in paths of beams directed toward reference arms of said first and second interferometer loops for modulating phase of the respective reference beams at selected modulation frequencies, thereby shifting beating frequencies of the collected interfering signals, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, while phase modulators are well known in the art for modulating phase of light in order to shift frequencies of that light, the prior art of record fails to show the phase modulator and its function as set forth above.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 13, wherein said control circuit is configured and operable to determine a relation Γ (Gamma) between mutual coherence factors detected by said detection unit for said at least first and second interferometer loops, said relation Γ being indicative of a range to said target object, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 13, wherein said control circuit is configured for analyzing a variation frequency of the detected signals from said detection unit, said analyzing comprising determining peak frequency of variation of the detected signals and power of peak frequency components, a relation between power of peak frequency components of signals of the at least first and second interferometer loops being indicative of range to said target object in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 17, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein the at least first and second detectors of the detection unit are at least first and second detector arrays, said optical arrangement comprises an imaging optical arrangement for generating an interference of image of said target object and respective first and second reference beams onto said first and second detector arrays, to thereby generate interference data of said image on the corresponding one of the first and second detector arrays respectively, thereby enabling range detection of a selected field of view, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 29, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for use in determining range to a target object, the method comprising, among other essential steps, determining first and second interference intensities associated with interference of said first and second portions of reflected light with light of said first and second reference arms respectively; and processing data on said first and second interference intensities to determine range to said target object, wherein the method also comprises applying selected noise affecting relative coherence between at least one of said first and second portions of illumination and said third portion of the EM beam, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 33, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system, the system comprising, among other essential features, a detection unit comprising at least two detectors, each configured for detecting combined illumination formed by at least a portion of a reference beam and a portion of collected light and generate detection data, said detection data being indicative of a distance to said target; and wherein said at least one interrogating beam comprises at least two interrogating beams different between them in wavelength; and wherein the system comprises a noise generating unit configured to affect coherence length of light in one of said at least two interrogating beams the interrogating beams, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Further regarding claims 2, 14-17, 29 and 33, as discussed above regarding claim 1, the combination of Haji Reza and Muenter disclose both an interferometer for measuring a sample and a noise generator that is able to affect the coherence of light in the interferometer loops. However, this combination would not render obvious being able to determine range or distance to the target object as claimed, as interferometry can only take place when the path lengths between the reference and measurement beams are within the coherence length of the light source. Making the light source change from long coherence length to short coherence length as taught by Muenter would prevent range measurements to the target object from being able to be made via interferometry.
The examiner notes that while no prior art rejection is available to be made on claim 27, given the nature of the rejections set forth above and the fact that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, no specific statement on the allowability of that claim over the prior art is made at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2014/0268290 to Sebastian et al. teaches a system and method for increasing coherence length of the laser source using a phase corrected laser output (see claims 1 and 4); US 2017/0038192 to Chen et al. teaches an absolute distance measurement apparatus and method using a dual wavelength interferometer (see abstract and Fig. 1); US 2017/0127937 to Fujii discloses an interferometer where coherence length is increased by increasing the reflectances of reflectors in the light source (see paragraph 0053); and US 2021/0025690 to Tearney et al. teaches an optical coherence interferometer with multiple reference arms (see Fig. 2).
Additionally, the examiner notes US 2021/0033380 to Sternklar et al; WO 01/42735 to Podoleanu et al; and “Overcoming coherence length limitation in two wavelength interferometry — an experimental verification” by Fischer et al. that were cited during examination of related applications PCT/IL2022/051016 and EP 22793472.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 14, 2026