DETAILED ACTION
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 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections are made. See below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: the instant application filed 09/30/2025 is a continuation of 16501526 , filed 04/23/2019. Application 16501526 is a continuation in part of 15932639, filed 03/28/2018 ,now U.S. Patent # 10935670.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160299228 A1, Maleki et al., (“Maleki”).
Regarding claim 1, Maleki teaches a system for determining a relative surface velocity vector (Fig. 11, [0069], an FMCW Lidar), comprising:
a narrow linewidth emitter to provide a coherent electromagnetic signal comprising a linewidth of less than 100 kHz ([0069-0070] laser 1110; [0037] narrow linewidth “for example, 1,000 Hz, 500 Hz, 250 Hz, 100 Hz, or less”; Fig. 1 and [0042] discloses the emitter structure for producing narrow linewidth laser light);
a transmitter to transmit the emitter output via a boresight component as an optical transmitted signal, the boresight component configured to transmit the optical transmitted signal and receive reflected optical signal (Fig. 11, [0070], optical scanner 1150);
a receiver coupled to the boresight component to receive the reflected optical signal and produce an electrical output based on the reflected optical signal ([0071] a photocell/amplifier assembly receives the reflected optical signal and converts the reflected optical signal to a corresponding electrical signal);
an oscillator ([0070] chip generator 1130) to generate an oscillated signal (retained laser signal after being splitted) to be combined with the electrical output to produce a signal that is amplified according to a bandwidth of the oscillated signal ([0072]); and
a processor to determine, based on the linewidth and the signal, a velocity vector of the system, the velocity vector comprising a magnitude of velocity and a direction of travel of the system along a line of sight of the boresight component relative to the system ([0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the narrow linewidth emitter is further configured to provide a linewidth of no greater than 10 kHz ([0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a waveform generator, coupled with the narrow linewidth emitter, to generate the emitter output that is modulated based on the coherent electromagnetic signal, wherein the waveform generator is further configured to implement a linear frequency modulation on the coherent electromagnetic signal to determine a range using frequency domain (Figs. 7A-B, 8A-B, [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the receiver is further configured to mix the reflected optical signal with a local oscillator in a homodyne or heterodyne configuration ([0057-0058], homodyne mode is disclosed).
Regarding claim 5, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine velocity from a Doppler frequency and distance from modulation sidebands in a frequency-domain analysis of the signal that is demodulated using the oscillated signal.
Claims 8-12 are method claims corresponding to system claims 1-5. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15-19 are device claims corresponding to system claims 1-5. They are rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maleki, in view of Mizuochi et.al., US 9494428 B2, (“Mizuochi”).
Regarding claim 6, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1. Maleki fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to apply translation and rotation transformations between a sensor frame, a vehicle frame, and a universal reference frame to express the velocity vector in a selected frame.
However, Mizuochi teaches wherein the processor is further configured to apply translation and rotation transformations between a sensor frame, a vehicle frame, and a universal reference frame to express the velocity vector in a selected frame (Column 5, Line 56-67, Column 6, Line 1-32, Column 8, Line 63-67, Column 9, Line 1-31, absolute frame as universal reference frame, local frame as sensor frame, vehicle frame as vehicle frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Amzajerdian ([0024]) to perform coordinate transformation between frames as taught by Mizuochi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of ensuring that the coordinate system of the moving body (vehicle) and the sensor are matched correctly together, allowing the velocity vector to be expressed in any coordinate system, thus improving trajectory determination (See Mizuochi – Column 17, Line 11-40).
Regarding claim 7, Maleki teaches the system of claim 1. Maleki fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to store the signal and corresponding velocity vector data over time in a memory, and to output a trajectory of the system based on sequential velocity vector determinations along the line of sight of the boresight component.
However, Mizuochi teaches wherein the processor is configured to store the signal and corresponding velocity vector data over time in a memory, and to output a trajectory of the system based on sequential velocity vector determinations along the line of sight of the boresight component (Column 8, Line 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Amzajerdian ([0024]) to perform trajectory determination as taught by Mizuochi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of improving determination of vehicle magnitude and direction (See Mizuochi – Column 17, Line 11-40).
Claims 13 and 14 are method claims corresponding to system claims 6 and 7. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 is a device claim corresponding to system claim 6. It is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights