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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 6/26/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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 6-8 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.
Claims 6-8 recite an “optical fiber disk”.
This term does not have an exact meaning in the art of LIDAR.
Based on its description in the specification, it appears that an “optical fiber disk” in a fiber optic element capable of outputting light to a target object.
Therefore, appropriate clarification is required.
For the purpose of claim interpretation, the term “optical fiber disk” will be read on any fiber optic element capable of delivering light to a target object.
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 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakin et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0185246).
With respect to claim 1, Dakin et al disclose: A lidar system [ taught by figure 2 ] comprising: a signal source [ taught by radiation source (200) ], a co-located transceiver module and a distributed transceiver module [ met by a first and second of the co-located transceiver modules (300) ], wherein the signal source is used to provide a trigger collection signal to simultaneously trigger the co-located transceiver module and the distributed transceiver module to detect a detection target [ figure 3 shows that the laser source (210) provided reference signals to enable mixing with light received by the co-located transceiver modules (300) to enable detection ], wherein the co-located transceiver module has a first telescope for emitting a detection beam and receiving co-located data returned by the detection target [ figure 4 shows that each transceiver (300) includes a detection lens (360) ], the distributed transceiver module has a second telescope for receiving distributed data returned by the detection target [ figure 4 shows that each transceiver (300) includes a detection lens (360) ], and spontaneous emission noise is fitted based on the co-located data and the distributed data.
Dakin et al does not disclose that spontaneous emission noise is fitted based on the co-located data and the distributed data.
Paragraph [0054] of Dakin et al states, “…The optical switch 340 may also be used in conjunction with an amplified spontaneous emission filter. Such a filter might be bulk optic or an FBG based filter. Such a filter may be installed to maintain laser eye safety, as necessary. It is often the case that these filters divert the amplified spontaneous emission ("ASE") to another fiber optic. This diverted laser can be used to monitor the operation of the optical amplifier 330 to adjust the amplifier's power…”
Therefore, it would have been a reasonable expectation of skilled artisan following the suggestion of paragraph [0054] to have fitted the ASE measured via each switch (340) in the co-located transceivers (300) to adjust relative power.
Claim 3 is met by the controller (100) operating in accordance with the subject matter of claim 1 operating under the modification of Dawkins et al, as applied to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 5 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.
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
With respect to claim 6, Sun et al (WO 2019169525 A1) disclose: An optical fiber sensing system [ taught by figure 3A ] comprising: a signal source, a laser [ suggested by laser source (303) ], a circulator [ taught by circulator (306) ], an optical fiber disk [ suggested by fiber pigtail (307) ], and an optical switch [ taught by switching device (305) ], wherein the signal source is used to provide a trigger collection signal to trigger the laser to emit a detection beam to detect a detection target, wherein the optical switch is used to control a switch of the circulator, and the optical switch has a first state in which the optical switch is turned on, the detection beam is emitted through a first output end of the circulator, and then is output by the optical fiber disk, and co-located data is returned by the detection target based on the detection beam [ page 7 of the translation states, “…The first optical port of the switching device 305 is an input optical port, and is connected to the second optical port of the optical splitter 304. The second optical port of the light-emitting device 305 is an output optical port and is connected to the first optical port of the circulator 306. It should be noted that the switching device 305 can include two states, a conducting state and a blocking state, respectively. When the switching device 305 is in an on state, the light beam outputted through the second optical port of the beam splitter 304 can be transmitted to the circulator 306 through the switching device 305. When the switching device 305 is in the blocking state, the light beam outputted through the second optical port of the beam splitter 304 cannot pass through the switching device 305…”]; and a second state in which the optical switch cuts off the first output end of the circulator, the detection beam enters the optical switch through a second output end of the circulator, and distributed data is received.
The cited prior art, taken alone of in combination, fails to teach or suggest a second state in which the optical switch cuts off the first output end of the circulator, the detection beam enters the optical switch through a second output end of the circulator, and distributed data is received.
Therefore, claim 6 and dependent claim 7 are allowable.
With regard to claim 8, the cited prior art at least fails to teach or suggest: providing a trigger collection signal by a signal source; triggering, based on the trigger collection signal, a co-located transceiver module and a distributed transceiver module to perform synchronous detection on a detection target; receiving co-located data and distributed data returned by the detection target; subtracting local noise from the co-located data and the distributed data, respectively; selecting a linear interval to normalize the co-located data; performing subtraction operation on the normalized co-located data and the distributed data to obtain spontaneous emission noise; and fitting the spontaneous emission noise by a function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights