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 filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Maleki fails to teach the following limitations of claim 1:
an oscillator to generate an oscillated signal to be combined with the electrical output to produce a signal that is amplified according to a bandwidth of the oscillated signal; 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.
More specifically, regarding Claim 1, Applicant contends the following:
1) Maleki fails to teach an oscillator because Maleki’s architecture “does not require the use of a separate local oscillator”;
2) Maleki teaches “a chirp generator 1130, which is merely a controller that modulates a WGM resonator and which is different than the claimed oscillator”;
3) Maleki independently photo detects reflected, reference chirps on separate photocells and processes them through an FFT engine.
4) Maleki uses narrow linewidth for laser performance and thus fails to teach a velocity vector based on the linewidth.
Regarding 1), Claim 1 does not require “a separate local oscillator”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a separate local oscillator) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, it is unclear what “separate local oscillator” means as Applicant’s spec fails to provide any guidance. Applicant’s specification in [0108] and [0109] show a transmitter and a local oscillator both receive signal from a same waveform generator. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s original spec, the claimed “oscillator” requires a waveform generator to produce an oscillated signal to be sent to a local oscillator.
Regarding 2), Maleki in Fig. 11 and [0070] teaches a chirp generator 1130 to control an optical resonator 1120 to produce FM modulated laser 1110, which is split into transmitted chirp and retained chirp ([0072]). Maleki also provides background teaching in [0007] and it is also well-known in the art of LIDAR technology that the retained chirp is known as “local oscillator” signal that precisely replicates an emitted chirp. The retained chirp is also sometimes referred to be a “reference signal” in the art. Therefore, Maleki clearly teaches the “oscillator” to produce the local oscillator signal.
Regarding 3), Applicant’s evidence only shows the Office’s prior art rejection is correct. The claim requires combining electrical signals of reflected signal and local oscillator signal. In other words, the claim requires the reflected optical signal be detected and converted to a first electrical signal, and the local oscillator optical signal to be detected and converted to a second electrical signal. In other words, the claim requires separate photocells to make the two independent optical detection/conversion. FFT analysis is additional processing for isolating a frequency range. It does not negate the claim’s requirement of two independent optical detection.
Regarding 4), Applicant is self-contradictory. Since Maleki teaches using narrow linewidth for laser performance for FMCW detection, and FMCW detection is for velocity detection, then Maleki teaches a velocity vector detection based on the linewidth chosen. FFT analysis is merely additional processing for signal analysis. It does not negate the fact that Maleki teaches FMCW detection of velocity based on a chosen narrow linewidth.
Applicant made no further arguments. Since applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, all prior art rejections are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 7/15/2026 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.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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"). See non-final rejection mailed 4/15/2026 (“OA”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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"). See OA.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights