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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to claim 2 and 12, the phrase “orientation” is not supported in the specification. The specification does not describe recovering object orientation from the TX/RX comparison. Polarization state of the field is not the same as orientation of an object.
With respect to claim 6, the specification describes random amplitude and phase and two orthogonal polarization channels. It does not describe selecting the digital information for a class of orthogonal sequences.
With respect to claim 8, the specification discloses the existence of an embodiment where the second lens differs from a first lens (P.0058). However, nowhere else is this two lens embodiment supported providing support to show possession of that arrangement as claimed.
With respect to claim 13, the specification fails to disclose a gradient descent algorithm for the disclosed comparison of transmitted and received signals. The specification does not show the inventors were actually in possession of “the comparison …performed using a gradient descent algorithm”.
With respect to claim 16, the specification discloses scenes with discrete object but does not provide support for utilizing “sparsity” as a method to identify or detect object. P.0132 discloses “a sparsity-promoting regularization term Lsparse” but doesn’t clarify how that term is determined. P.0180 discloses using “a sparsity regularizer” but fails to explain how that regularizer is determined.
With respect to claim 17, the specification fails to disclose “applying L1, Frobenius, determinant, and/or unitary constrains as regularizers”. All terms are mentioned but not all variations and mixing and matching of the alternatives (L1 and determinant, Frobenius and unitary, L1 and unitary, all 4, only 1, etc). The full options would require undue experimentation as to how SNR sets the regularizer, which portion of the signal is used, and how to combine the different penalties.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations are missing the “dual polarization modem”. The specification discloses “multiple dimensions” only in the context of the dual polarization. It isn’t clear what “multiple dimensions” actually means but it seems that without polarization, only a single polarization may not fulfill the multiple dimensions. Clarification on both “multiple dimensions” and how there can be multiple dimensions without dual polarization is required.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 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.
With respect to claim 1 and 18, the limitation “detect and identify the objects in the target scene” is indefinite. The claim requires both “detect” and “identify” but the specification describes several different things: “detect and identify” lumped together as one step (P.0052, P.0196), “detect or identify” in the alternative (P.0065, P.0067) and defines “detection includes identifying” (P.0200). The examples provide that detect and identify results in knowing velocity, distance, and polarization maps of scenes but there is no further “identify” as defined by a common definition “to perceiver or state the identity of someone or something” per Merriam-Webster. Simply acknowledging the existence of the object (to perceive) is one common definition of identify however it falls under the same umbrella as detect which causes confusion as to if something further is being done beyond just detecting an object. The scope of “identify” is indefinite.
With respect to claims 1 and 18, the limitation “the comparison identifies second portions of the second electrical signal that resemble in whole or in part the digital information encoded…” includes the phrase “in whole or in part” has no stated metric, threshold, or even domain. What part of the electrical signal (time, symbol, peak, bit agreement) resembles the totally different digitally encoded information that takes a different form? The specification discloses the comparison is a matched filter or model fit, not comparison of raw data. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1 and 18, the phrase “digital information encoded across multiple dimensions” is not supported in its breadth. The ambiguity of the phrase can be read on too many different dimensions that are outside the realm of support in the specification. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2 and 12, the phrase “orientation” is indefinite since there has been no physical bounds placed on any of the structural components so “orientation” lacks any structural relationship to the other components.
With respect to claim 5, discloses “is mutually correlated or uncorrelated” covering both alternatives and failing to further limit claim 1 in any definite way. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 6, the phrase “pseudo-random data selected from a class of orthogonal sequences” is confusing since “pseudo-random data” and “orthogonal sequences” are different objects. The specification discloses a random amplitude and phase on two orthogonal polarizations. Orthogonal sequences are different than the specification’s use of the word “orthogonal” with respect to polarization axes. A POSITA would not be able to tell what is meant by the claim language.
With respect to claim 12, the limitation “the comparison of the second electrical signal to the first electrical signal is based on a model of the second optical signal” is unclear. Comparing two electrical signals to each other is straight forward, however comparing them based on a model is confusing. There is no indication of how the electrical signals relate to the model that comprises time, velocity, position, or orientation. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 14, the phrase “limits a search space of the variables to increase efficiency of the comparison” has relative terms that are not properly defined. “Limits” is unbounded, it could mean a threshold, it could mean simply ignoring one data point. “Increase efficiency” is a relative term not defined in the specification. The claim discloses a function with an intention without clarifying the metes and bounds.
With respect to claim 15, the phrase “angular gating” does not have a known definition in the art and one of ordinary skill would not know what the claim is limited to in order to satisfy the limitation. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 16, the phrase “utilizes sparsity of the target scene to detect or identify the objects” is unclear. The specification fails to disclose any algorithm, domain, or degree of sparsity. Utilizing sparsity could mean several things: that the scene happens to have only a few objects, peak picking on mostly empty axis, minimal data collection. The boundary of the claim is not reasonably certain.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations have several issues that cause indefiniteness. The phrase “regularizers are related to a signal-to-noise ratio of the second electrical signal” is not properly defined. It is not clear what the relationship between the SNR of the second electrical signal and the regularizers selected is, are they proportional (another issue with SNR of electrical signal being a function and regularizers limited to L1 norm, Frobenius,…) or simply selected based upon one another. It is unclear how regularizers for the first electrical signal can be a combination of the listed options since mixing types of regularizers would not make sense. Finally, the phrase “chosen to be robust to noise” is simply a desired result but provides no clarification to one of ordinary skill in the art how that selection is made.
The balance of claims are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies in the claims upon which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel U.S. Publication 2024/0210538 in view of Awwad EP 3694117.
With respect to claim 1, Wintermantel discloses a coherent LIDAR system for capturing the surroundings with phase modulation comprising:
Generating a first optical signal from a coherent modulator, wherein the modulator receives a first electrical signal and optical signals generated by an optical source (abstract, Figure 1, laser amplifier 1.4, P.0025)
Wherein the first electrical signal includes digital information encoded on a dimension of the first optical signal (Abstract, Figure 2, “phase modulated signal, in particular with pseudo-random change over discrete phase values”, modulation sequence b(n) of values +1 and -1, P.0025)
Receiving a second optical signal from the target scene, wherein the second optical signal corresponds to a reflection of the first optical signal from the objects of the target scene (Abstract, Figure 1, P.0025, “signals reflected back from objects, which are delayed with respect to the emitted signal by the distance-dependent transit time”)
Converting the second optical signal in a coherent receiver to generate a second electrical signal (Abstract, Figure 1, mixer 1.8, photodiode 1.9, P.0025)
Processing the second electrical signal to detect and identify the objects in the target scene based on a comparison of the second electrical signal to the first electrical signal, the comparison identifying second portions of the second electrical signal that resemble whole or in part the digital information encoded on the first optical signal (Abstract, Figures 3-4, P.0026-28)
However, Wintermantel fails to teach that the modulator is a dual-polarization coherent modulator, that the first electrical signals include digital information encoded across multiple dimensions of the first optical signal, or converting the second optical signal in a dual-polarization coherent receiver.
Awwad discloses a multi-carrier coherent coded distributed sensing system comprising:
Generating a first optical signal from a dual-polarization coherent modulator (P.0011, P.0019, Figure 1, optical transmitter 110, laser source 112, polarization diversity MZ modulator 116)
Wherein the dual polarization coherent modulator receives a first electrical signal and optical signals generated by an optical source (P.0019, P.0022, laser signal 115b and four digital coded analog signals 131 from DSP 128/DACs 130)
Wherein the first electrical signal includes digital information encoded across multiple dimensions of the first optical signal (P.0019, P.0022, P.0030, complementary BPSK and Q codes modulated onto X and Y polarizations, digital code sequences 129)
Converting the second optical signal in a dual polarization coherent receiver to generate a second electrical signal (P>0021, P.0023, Figure 1, optical receiver 120 is a dual polarization coherent receiver, hybrid mixer 122, O-to-E converters 124, ADc126)
A comparison of the second electrical signal to the first electrical signal that identifies portions of the second electrical signal that resemble in whole or in part the digital information encoded across the multiple dimensions of the first optical signal (P.0011, P.0024, DSP 128 “performing correlations between the digital signals 12 and the digital code sequences 129, Jones matrices from complementary codes on both polarization axes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the dual polarization coherent modulator of Awwad as the front end of the coherent coded LiDAR system of Wintermantel to encode the ranging code on additional field dimensions and to receive both polarization components of the object return, reducing polarization fading with a reasonable expectation of success since both references are drawn to comparing known digital optical waveforms for a coherent electrical return. Brown U.S. Publication 2020/0186258 explicitly teaches that the same coherent architecture works for both communication systems (Awwad) and lidar systems (Wintermantel) (P.0009, P.0066-67) providing the motivation to combine the teachings of Wintermantel and Awwad.
With respect to claim 2 and 3, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The objects in the target scene are characterized by variables utilized in the comparison, the variables include distance and relative velocity (P.0027)
The processing of the second electrical signal characterizes the variables singly or in combination (P.0027, inherent since singly or in combination are the only two options)
With respect to claim 4, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The optical source comprises one or more continuous wave laser (P.0025, Figure 1, laser source 1.2)
However, Wintermantel fails to disclose a narrow linewidth laser.
Awwad discloses:
The optical source comprises one or more narrow-linewidth continuous wave lasers (P.0019, P.0005-6, “requires a very narrow linewidth laser”, P.0019)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the narrow linewidth continuous wave laser of Awwad for the continuous laser of Wintermantel since as taught by Awwad, a narrow linewidth is necessary for phase tracking. Both coherent LiDAR of Wintermantel and Awwad’s sensing require a stable optical phase reference.
With respect to claim 5, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The multiple dimensions of the first optical signal include amplitude and phase (P.0020, P.0006)
Wherein the digital information encoded across the multiple dimensions of the first optical signal is mutually correlated or uncorrelated (P.0008, correlated)
With respect to claim 6, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The digital information encoded across multiple dimensions of the first optical signal includes pseudo-random data (P.0008, P.0012, P.0025)
However, Wintermantel fails to disclose the pseudo-random data is selected from orthogonal sequences. Awwad discloses:
Using pseudo-random data selected from a class of orthogonal sequences (P.0019, P.0022, P.024, P.0031, Golay-type complementary pairs = orthogonal sequences)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the orthogonal complementary codes of Awwad with the already pseudo-random binary phase sequence of Wintermantel in order to correlate with the dual polarizations already taught by Awwad and combined with Wintermantel. This is a known coded waveform for a correlation ranging method.
With respect to claim 7, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The second optical signal is received via an element that is used for transmitting the first optical signal (P.0025, Figure 1, circulator and transceiver unit radiate the first optical signal and acquire the object return)
However, Wintermantel fails to specifically disclose a lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a lens to transmit light to and from an optical fiber or circulator. A person who has ordinary skill in the art would almost always uses a collimating or focusing lens as the last element in a transmission of a laser beam to and from free space in order control predictably the optical signal and allow for the strongest transmission and collection. The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that lenses are commonly used in these types of LiDAR systems.
With respect to claim 8, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7 above. However, Wintermantel and Awwad fail to disclose the second optical signal which is received via a first lens that differs from a second lens used for transmitting the first optical signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use two separate pathways rather than the combined single path taught by Wintermantel and Awwad because monostatic versus bistatic is a routine choice to reduce crosstalk. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With respect to claim 9, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The second optical signal is related to the first optical signal via reflection (P.0025, Figure 1)
With respect to claim 10, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The processing the second electrical signal is performed by cross correlation of the second portions of the second electrical signal with first portions of the first electrical signal (P.0011, P.0026-28, cross correlations of TX and RX data)
With respect to claim 11, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The second portions of the second electrical signal are identified based on a second phase of the second optical signal, a second amplitude of the second optical signal, or combinations thereof compared to a first phase of the first optical signal, first amplitude of the first optical signal, or combinations thereof (P.0026-28, compares amplitude and phase sequences)
With respect to claim 12, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The comparison of the second electrical signal to the first electrical signal is based on a model of the second optical signal that includes phase, amplitude, or combinations thereof and wherein variables of the model include time, velocity or combinations thereof (P.0026, Figure 3-4, P.0027, model includes amplitude a and phase b, variables of model include time/delay m0 and velocity ko)
With respect to claim 14, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 12 above. Wintermantel and Awwad fails to specifically disclose “limits the search space of the variables to increase efficiency of the comparison” however this is inherent to the comparisons of both Wintermantel and Awwad since the limitation is a generic limiting of the variables and any comparison or mathematical calculation would inherently have to create maximum and minimum values for the variables in order to carry out the functions without infinite data. Wintermantel even discloses selecting a particular finite set of delays with a maximum object distance M (P.0027-28). This same thinking is applicable to the variables in the comparison.
With respect to claim 15, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 12 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses:
The comparison of the second electrical signal to the first electrical signal is performed via time gating and Doppler gating or combinations thereof (P.0008, P.0026-28, selecting peak at lag and a Doppler bin is time and Doppler gating)
With respect to claim 18, 19 and 20, Wintermantel in view of Awwad discloses all of the limitations for a method applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Wintermantel discloses a device for coherent LIDAR capturing the surroundings with phase modulation comprising:
A processing system including a processor (P.0029)
A memory that stores executable instructions that when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations comprising claim 1 (P.0029, P.0008, P.0017, Figure 1, 3, claim 1)
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel U.S. Publication 2024/0210538 in view of Awwad EP 3694117 and further in view of Carlson et al. DE 102023120330.
With respect to claim 13, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Wintermantel and Awwad fail to disclose the comparison of the first and second electrical signals are performed using a gradient descent algorithm.
Carlson discloses a LiDAR neural field into free space comprising:
Transmitting the first optical signal to a target scene including objects (P.0008, lidar beam, P.0033)
Receiving a second optical signal from the target scene, wherein the second optical signal corresponds to a reflection of the first optical signal from the objects of the target scene (P.0005, P.0008, P.0034)
Processing the second optical signal based on a comparison to the first optical signal using a gradient descent algorithm (P.0010, loss function = comparison, P.0034, P.0039, P.0048)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the gradient descent algorithm of Carlson for the comparison in Wintermantel since the gradient descent algorithm is one type of a limited number of mathematical iterations for comparing large amounts of data and is useful for minimizing weight of noise on the signal and allows multidimensional data to be compared.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel U.S. Publication 2024/0210538 in view of Awwad EP 3694117 and further in view of Carlson et al. DE 102023120330.
With respect to claim 16, Wintermantel in view of Awwad disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 12 above. However, Wintermantel and Awwad fail to disclose the comparison of the first and second electrical signals involves sparsity of target scene to identify objects.
Owechko discloses a compressive scanning lidar comprising:
Transmitting the first optical signal to a target scene including objects (Figure 1, Col.2, l 15-25)
Receiving a second optical signal from the target scene, wherein the second optical signal corresponds to a reflection of the first optical signal from the objects of the target scene (Figure 1, Col.2, l 15-25)
Processing the second optical signal based on a comparison to the first optical signal using a sparsity of the target scene to detect or identify objects (abstract, Col.5, l 5- Col.6, l 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use sparsity of the target scene as in Owechko for the comparison of Wintermantel since Wintermantel already models the scene as a small number of objects (P.00326-27) and Owechko’s reasons for using a sparse representation is for that type of scene for optimizing the problem solving.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and rejected under 35 USC 112, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to correct for the 112 deficiencies.
Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Callum et al. “Detection statistics for coherent RMCW LiDAR” discloses a RMCW LiDAR with pseudo random modulation with phase information reflected back from an object.
Du et al. “Polarimetric full-wavefield coherent lidar” discloses recovering a scene from geometry and measuring Doppler shift of backscattered light with polarimetric coherent lidar.
Dorize and Awwad “Enhancing the performance of coherent OTDR systems with polarization diversity complementary codes” discloses dual polarization and phase responses to light from objects in a coherent OTDR system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights