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 currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicants’ remarks/arguments filed on 07/17/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
The nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed by Applicant and approved.
Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed on 07/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered.
The amendments to independent claims 1 and 14 overcome the rejection as previously formulated with respect to the newly clarified relationship between the negative image, the reference beat frequency signal, the portion of the optical beam along the reference path, and the reference local oscillator (LO) signal. Amended claim 1 now recites that the coherent receiver disposed in the reference path produces the first and second mixed signals based on “a portion of the optical beam along the reference path and a reference local oscillator (LO) signal,” and further recites that the negative image is of the reference beat frequency signal produced by that optical-beam portion and reference LO signal. Claim 14 contains corresponding method limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant’s amendment necessitated further prior art. A new ground of rejection is therefore set forth below. Sandborn and Hui continue to be relied upon for the teachings identified below, and Gurunathan et al. (US 2005/0068533 A1) is additionally relied upon for the newly clarified relationship between optical signal/LO phase diverse heterodyne processing and separation/rejection of a negative image.
Applicant argues that Hui does not disclose or use the terminology “negative image” of a beat frequency signal. Applicant’s argument directed to Hui’s failure to teach the claimed negative image is moot in view of the new ground of rejection, because Hui is no longer relied upon for teaching that limitation.
Hui continues to be relied upon for phase-diversity processing directed to removal of phase-noise effects. Hui [0013] teaches that phase-noise-induced signal fading is a common problem with homodyne detection and that such fading may be removed using a phase-diversity receiver. Hui [0018] further teaches filtering and combining phase-diverse signals in a manner that removes dependency upon the cosφ(t) and sinφ(t) terms representing phase noise while retaining beat-frequency information.
Gurunathan is newly relied upon for the negative image teaching. Gurunathan [0002]-[0003] teaches optical heterodyne detection in which an optical signal is mixed with an optical local oscillator signal, wherein the heterodyne beat frequency corresponds to the instantaneous frequency difference between the optical signal and the local oscillator.
Gurunathan further teaches phase-diverse heterodyne processing to obtain a quadrature representation. Gurunathan [0023] teaches generating I- and Q-channel components and a complex quadrature signal, and [0024] teaches complex filtering to separate the negative image from the positive image, including isolation of either image. Gurunathan [0026] further teaches that an optical frequency image may be rejected due to the phase-diversity characteristic.
Accordingly, Hui is relied upon for removal of phase noise dependent effects, whereas Gurunathan is relied upon for the additional negative image separation/rejection teaching.
Applicant argues that Hui does not disclose the claimed reference path arrangement because the signals processed in Hui are derived from a target return signal received through the telescope rather than from a reference path. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely upon Hui for the claimed reference path arrangement. Rather, Sandborn is relied upon for the reference path and coherent reference receiver. In particular, Sandborn teaches reference interferometer 550 disposed in the reference path, wherein coherent light is split between two interferometer arms, recombined by optical hybrid 503, and detected to produce I-channel and Q-channel signals. See Sandborn Fig. 5A and [0040]. Hui is relied upon for its teaching of processing phase-diverse coherent signals to remove phase-noise effects. Thus, Applicant’s argument addresses Hui individually rather than the combined teachings of Sandborn and Hui.
Applicant’s argument that there is no reason or motivation to combine Sandborn and Hui is not persuasive. Sandborn uses its reference interferometer to characterize laser-frequency behavior. Sandborn [0045]-[0047] teach measuring and processing the I- and Q-channel reference signals and determining their phase. Paragraph [0047] explains that the phase determination corresponds to the phase of the complex combination of the I and Q signals. Sandborn [0048] then determines the instantaneous frequency of the laser using the phase, and [0049]- [0051] use deviations in that instantaneous frequency to control the laser waveform and ultimately determine/correct range and/or velocity measurements.
Hui identifies the same type of coherent receiver impairment. Specifically, Hui [0013] states that phase noise-induced fading is a common problem in homodyne detection and teaches using phase-diversity reception and DSP to remove the phase-noise effect. Hui [0018] further teaches a 90° phase-diverse arrangement in which the two signals are filtered and combined so that the cosφ(t) and sinφ(t) terms representing phase noise are removed, while the beat-frequency information is retained.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Hui’s known phase-diversity signal-combination technique to Sandborn’s reference path I/Q receiver because Sandborn already relies on accurate phase and instantaneous frequency measurements of the reference signal, while Hui teaches that phase-diversity processing removes phase-noise effects that impair such coherent measurements. The combination would predictably improve the accuracy and robustness of Sandborn’s laser phase/frequency characterization and the resulting range and/or velocity determination.
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 14 have also been considered. Claim 14 recites corresponding method limitations involving the coherent receiver in the reference path, production and combination of first and second mixed reference-beat signals, and suppression of the negative image. For substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Sandborn teaches the corresponding reference-path coherent I/Q operations, Hui teaches phase diversity processing for removal of phase noise-dependent effects, and Gurunathan teaches separation/rejection of the negative image associated with optical signal/LO phase diverse heterodyne processing.
Accordingly, claim 14 remains rejected under the new ground of rejection set forth below.
Applicant contends that dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20 are patentable by virtue of their dependence from claims 1 or 14. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 14 remain rejected under the new ground of rejection set forth herein. Applicant has not separately identified error in the prior art teachings relied upon for the additional limitations of the dependent claims. Accordingly, the dependent claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth below.
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, 9-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn et al. (WO 2021150826 A1, “Sandborn”) in view of Hui et al. (US 20080018881 A1, Hui) and Gurunathan et al. (US 2005/0068533 A1, “Gurunathan”).
Regarding claim 1, Sandborn teaches a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system (Fig. 5A. See also, fig. 5B), comprising:
an optical source to emit an optical beam along a target path towards a target and a reference path (Fig. 5A, laser 506, [0040]: lines 7-8 and 13-17);
a coherent receiver (Fig. 5A, interferometer 550) disposed in the reference path,
the coherent receiver to produce, based on a portion of the optical beam along the reference path and a reference local oscillator (LO) signal, a first mixed signal comprising a first portion of a reference beat signal and a second mixed signal comprising a second portion of the reference beat signal (Sandborn teaches that splitter 501 divides the coherent reference light into two interferometer arms, one of which is delayed by delay arm 502, and that optical hybrid 503 recombines the two optical signals and produces phase-shifted outputs. Balanced photodetectors 504 produce corresponding I-channel and Q-channel signals. Thus, Sandborn teaches first and second mixed signals resulting from coherent mixing of the reference optical signals. See Sandborn [0040], Fig. 5A.; Claim 15); and
a processor to combine the first mixed signal and the second mixed signal to generate a combined reference signal (Fig. 5A, controller 511, [0040]: lines 26- 30),
Sandborn fails to explicitly teach wherein a negative image of a reference beat frequency signal produced by the portion of the optical beam and the reference LO signal is suppressed to estimate a phase noise of the optical source to determine at least one of range or velocity information of the target.
However, Hui [0013] states that phase noise-induced signal fading is a common problem with homodyne detection and teaches using phase-diversity reception and DSP to combat that phase noise. Hui’s Fig. 6 employs phase-separated detector outputs which are digitized and processed to remove the phase-noise effect.
More specifically, Hui [0018] teaches a 90° phase-diverse embodiment in which first and second detector signals are filtered and combined in a manner that removes dependency upon the cosφ(t) and sinφ(t) terms representing phase noise, while retaining the beat frequency component used for frequency/distance determination.
Thus, when Hui’s known quadrature phase-diversity processing is applied to Sandborn’s first and second reference I/Q beat signals, the unwanted conjugate/opposite frequency component associated with the phase-noise-dependent terms is suppressed while the desired reference beat component is retained for phase/frequency determination.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hui’s phase-diversity signal combination technique into Sandborn’s coherent reference receiver in order to suppress phase noise-related unwanted signal components in the reference beat signal, thereby reducing phase-noise effects and improving the accuracy and robustness of Sandborn’s determination of laser phase/instantaneous frequency and resulting range or velocity information.
Sandborn, in view of Hui, still fails to explicitly identify the unwanted image component of the optical signal/LO beat frequency signal as a negative image or teach separating/rejecting such negative image.
However, Gurunathan teaches optical heterodyne detection in which an optical signal is mixed with an optical local oscillator signal, wherein the heterodyne beat frequency is the instantaneous difference between the optical signal frequency and the LO frequency. See Gurunathan [0002]- [0003].
Gurunathan further teaches that phase diverse heterodyne signals are processed to obtain a quadrature representation and states that the negative image and positive image may be filtered/separated using the quadrature representation. See [0004].
More particularly, Gurunathan [0023] teaches forming I and Q channel signals and a resulting complex quadrature signal S=I+iQ. Gurunathan [0024] then teaches that the quadrature signal may be subjected to complex filtering “to separate the negative image from the positive image,” including isolating either the negative or positive image. Gurunathan [0026] additionally teaches that the optical frequency image may be rejected due to the phase diversity characteristic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the Sandborn as modified by Hui system to apply the known quadrature image separation technique taught by Gurunathan because doing so, will suppress the undesired negative image while retaining the desired beat frequency information for the phase/frequency processing already taught by Sandborn and Hui.
Regarding claim 9, Sandborn in view of Hui and Gurunathan, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein processor is further configured to improve an image rejection ratio by performing a calibration of the combined reference signal (Sandborn, [0040]: lines 27-34. See also, fig. 6 [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Sandborn in view of Hui and Gurunathan, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 9, wherein a feedback of the calibration comprises an image rejection ratio between a positive image and the negative image of the reference beat signal (Sandborn, [0040]: lines 27-34. See also, fig. 6 [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 9, wherein the processor is to digitally adjust an amplitude of at least one of the first mixed signal or the second mixed signal after normalization (Sandborn, [0040]: lines 25-28).
Claim 14 is a method claims corresponding to system claims 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 2, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Michaels et al. (US 20220075076 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach but Michaels teaches the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to compare a target return signal from the target with the combined reference signal to estimate the phase noise (para [102]-[104]. See also, fig. 1, interferometer 104).
It would have been obvious to combine Sandborn’s Lidar system with Michaels because it will improve the signal to noise ration by actively cancel unwanted phase fluctuations (“phase noise”).
Regarding claim 13, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach but Michaels teaches the LiDAR system of claim 9, wherein the processor is to de-skew at least one of the first mixed signal or the second mixed signal in a time domain to mitigate any time delay between the first mixed signal and the second mixed signal (Para [94]-[95]).
It would have been obvious to combine Sandborn’s Lidar system with Michaels because it will improve the signal to noise ration by actively cancel unwanted phase fluctuations (“phase noise”).
Regarding claim 15, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach but Michaels teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising comparing, by the processor, a target return signal from the target with the combined reference signal to estimate the phase noise (para [102]-[104]. See also, fig. 1, interferometer 104).
It would have been obvious to combine Sandborn’s Lidar system with Michaels because it will improve the signal to noise ration by actively cancel unwanted phase fluctuations (“phase noise”).
Claims 3, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Hui, Gurunathan, and Deczky et al. (US 20110249981 A1, “Deczky”).
Regarding claim 3, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to improve an image rejection ratio to correct a hybrid angle and amplitude balance imperfections to suppress the negative image.
However, Deczky teaches that a coherent optical receiver with a 90° hybrid coupler and quadrature outputs may suffer optical angle and magnitude imbalance between quadrature paths and further teaches digital circuitry that iteratively corrects those impairments using correction coefficients applied to the real and imaginary signal components. See Deczky [0001], [0022]-[0029], Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6; claim 1.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to implement Deczky’s known digital I/Q imbalance correction in order to correct hybrid-angle and amplitude-balance imperfections in Sandborn’s hybrid/I-Q receiver path, thereby improving image rejection performance of the coherent receiver.
Regarding claim 12, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach the LiDAR system of claim 9, wherein the processor is to combine the first mixed signal and the second mixed signal at an angle different from 90.
Sandborn teaches a coherent FMCW LiDAR system that generates first and second mixed signals in the form of I and Q receiver outputs and processes those signals with a controller/processor. See Sandborn [0023]- [0026], [0040]-[0049], Figs. 5A-7.
While Deczky teaches that, although a coherent receiver nominally uses a 90° hybrid, the quadrature paths may exhibit optical angle imbalance (at least [0022], claim 1), illustrated as a rotation of the quadrature axis by an angle θ (Fig. 2, [0024]) relative to the in-phase axis, and further teaches a digital correction system that combines the quadrature components with correction coefficients to compensate that imbalance. See Deczky [0022]- [0029], Figs. 1, 2, and 5.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to combine the first and second mixed signals using Deczky’s angle-corrected digital combination, i.e., at an angle different from 90°, in order to compensate for quadrature-path error and improve subsequent coherent LiDAR processing.
Claim 16 is a method claims corresponding to system claim 3. It is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4-7, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch et al. (US 20190339388 A1, “Crouch”).
Regarding claim 4, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach the LiDAR system of claim 1, wherein the processor is to generate the combined reference signal by applying a polarity correction.
However, Crouch teaches that, in coherent optical ranging, lack of I/Q detection leaves Doppler content at both positive and negative shifts such that the sign is ambiguous and further teaches using I/Q detection and digital processing to determine the signed Doppler shift and to use that signed value to correct range processing. See Crouch [0078]- [0080], Figs. 3B, 3C, 12B, and 13; claim 20.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to apply Crouch’s sign-resolving I/Q correction so that the combined reference processing uses the correct polarity/sign of the detected component, i.e., a polarity correction, thereby reducing ambiguity and improving corrected range/velocity determination.
Regarding claim 5, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 4, wherein the processor is to determine a sign of the second mixed signal depending on a direction of frequency sweeping.
Crouch teaches that in a chirped LiDAR system the beat frequency for the up chirp is shifted one way and the beat frequency for the down chirp is shifted the opposite way, so the measured beats can be corrected with the correctly signed value to get the proper up-chirp and down-chirp ranges. Crouch also teaches that I/Q detection is used to resolve the sign of the Doppler shift, and in the flow chart illustrates in Fig. 13 ([0154]) the processor combines I and Q returns digitally and calculates FFTs that suppress the ambiguous Doppler peak before computing range and direction. [0078]-[0080], [0131]-[0139], Fig. 9B.
It would have been obvious to apply Crouch’s signed I/Q chirp processing in Sandborn because Sandborn already uses coherent I/Q signals in an FMCW LiDAR processor, and Crouch teaches that the sign associated with the detected component depends on how the chirped sweep is interpreted and is needed to correct range/velocity ambiguity. Using sweep-direction-dependent sign selection would have predictably improved Sandborn’s ability to disambiguate Doppler effects in the measured beat signals.
Regarding claim 6, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 5, wherein, provided the direction is an up-sweeping direction, the processor is to determine the sign of the second mixed signal to be a first sign.
In the simultaneous up/down chirp, Crouch explains that the up chirp and down chirp occupy different frequency relationships and specifically states that the up-chirp beat frequency is shifted one way while the down-chirp beat frequency is shifted the opposite way. Crouch further explains that the LO may be arranged so the up-chirp beat is brought near zero and corrected with the correctly signed known offset. [0131], [0138]-[0139], Fig. 9B and Fig. 9D. Crouch assigns one sign/polarity to the up-sweeping case.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to assign a first sign to the second mixed signal when the frequency sweep is up-sweeping because Sandborn already uses a processor/controller to handle coherent I/Q receiver outputs, and Crouch teaches that, in chirped optical ranging, the up-chirp and down-chirp components are intentionally separated and corrected according to their sweep-dependent frequency behavior. Crouch specifically explains that the up-chirp beat can be placed in a designated band, including near zero in some embodiments, and then corrected using the correctly signed known offset. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have recognized that assigning a fixed first sign to the up-sweep case is a straightforward processor rule for implementing Crouch’s disclosed chirp-dependent correction within Sandborn’s coherent LiDAR DSP chain, thereby improving deterministic separation of up-sweep data and reducing range/Doppler ambiguity.
Regarding claim 7, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the LiDAR system of claim 6, wherein, provided the direction is a down-sweeping direction, the processor is to determine the sign of the second mixed signal to be a second sign which is an opposite sign of the first sign.
As described above, Crouch explains that the down chirp is shifted oppositely from the up chirp, so the corrected value for the down-sweep case necessarily has the opposite sign convention from the up-sweep case. [0131], [0138]- [0139], Fig. 9B and Fig. 9D. See also, Fig. 13 (Steps 1321 and 1323), the processor computes range from the average frequency difference in up and down chirp returns and determines relative speed and direction from the difference in the unsuppressed shifts.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to assign the opposite sign to the second mixed signal when the frequency sweep is down-sweeping because Crouch teaches that the down-chirp component is displaced in the opposite frequency direction/band from the up-chirp component and is correspondingly corrected with the opposite signed so that the up and down-chirp measurements can be paired to recover correct range and motion information. Since Sandborn already processes coherent I/Q outputs in a controller, applying an opposite sign convention for the down-sweep case would have been the predictable counterpart to the up-sweep sign assignment, ensuring that complementary chirp returns are handled consistently and that the processor preserves the correct directional relationship needed for accurate Doppler-compensated ranging.
Regarding claim 17, Sandborn, in view of Hui and Gurunathan, fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 14, wherein the combining, by the processor, the first mixed signal and the second mixed signal to generate the combined reference signal comprises combining, by the processor, the first mixed signal and the second mixed signal to generate the combined reference signal by applying a polarity correction.
However, Crouch teaches that without I/Q processing, the Doppler sign is ambiguous, whereas with I/Q processing the system determines a signed Doppler shift and uses that signed value to correct the chirped ranging result. Crouch (abstract and claim 1) says the method determines a signed Doppler frequency shift based on a complex digital signal. Fig. 13 shows that the processor combines I and Q returns digitally, calculates FFTs which suppress ambiguous Doppler peak, then computes corrected range and direction (Step 1311, 1313, 1323).
It would have been obvious to use Crouch’s signed-I/Q Doppler correction in Sandborn’s method because Sandborn already processes coherent I/Q signals in a LiDAR processor, and Crouch teaches that applying a sign-resolving correction during I/Q combination removes positive/negative ambiguity and improves corrected range determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have used that known correction in Sandborn to ensure the combined reference signal is formed with the proper polarity/sign relationship for downstream LiDAR processing.
Regarding claim 18, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the applying the polarity correction comprises determining a sign of the second mixed signal depending on a direction of frequency sweeping.
Crouch teaches that in chirped optical ranging, the up chirp and down chirp produce different beat-frequency placements and that the correct Doppler compensation depends on the sweep behavior. In the up/down chirp sweeping, Crouch explains that the measured beats are corrected with the correctly signed value of the known shift, and that up-chirp and down-chirp information are handled separately. [0121]- [0127], [0136]- [0139]; Figs. 9A, 9B, 9D, and 13. See also, the rejection of claim 5.
It would have been obvious to make the polarity-correction step in Sandborn dependent on chirp direction because Crouch teaches that the sign of the Doppler-related correction depends on whether the detected signal corresponds to the up-sweep or the down-sweep. Incorporating that sweep-direction rule into Sandborn’s combining method would have predictably improved separation of the complementary chirp returns and reduced range/Doppler ambiguity.
Regarding claim 19, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the applying the polarity correction comprises, provided the direction is an up-sweeping direction, determining the sign of the second mixed signal to be a first sign. See also, the rejection of claim 6.
Crouch teaches that the up-chirp beat can be intentionally placed in one band, including near zero in some embodiments, and then corrected using the correctly signed known offset. In the simultaneous up/down chirp sweeping, Crouch explains that the up chirp occupies one side/band relative to the LO and that the beat is corrected accordingly. [0137]- [0139] and Figs. 9D and 13.
Regarding claim 20, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the applying the polarity correction comprises, provided the direction is a down-sweeping direction, determining the sign of the second mixed signal to be a second sign which is an opposite sign of the first sign.
As described in claim 19, Crouch that the down chirp is displaced in the opposite frequency direction/band from the up chirp and therefore is corrected with the opposite signed treatment so that the up- and down-chirp results can be paired properly. Fig. 13 (Steps 1321, 1323) shows that the processor computes range from the average frequency difference in up and down chirp returns and determines speed/direction from the difference in the unsuppressed shifts. [0136]-[0139], Figs. 9D and 13. See also, the rejection of claim 7. Same motivation as claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandborn in view of Hui, Gurunathan, Crouch and Crouch et al. (US 20200124727 A1, “Crouch 727”).
Regarding claim 8, Sandborn, in view of Hui, Gurunathan and Crouch, fails to explicitly teach LiDAR system of claim 5, wherein the processor is to apply a square wave to change the sign.
Crouch 727 teaches a LiDAR system in which a square wave instruction is provided to an RF waveform generator to generate a square wave digital chirp signal, which in turn is used to generate an input digital chirp signal for modulating the optical signal, and further teaches modulating a phase of the reference optical signal based on that square-wave-derived input signal. See Crouch 727, abstract, [0006]- [0007], [0039]- [0042], Figs. 2A, 3A, 3C, 5A, and 9.
It would have been obvious to configure Sandborn’s processor to apply Crouch 727’s square-wave digital chirp control to the reference-processing path so as to switch the phase state of the reference signal and thereby change the effective sign/polarity of the mixed output used in downstream LiDAR processing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 -5:30.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights