DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 19, the claim needs to end with a period “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a chirplet pre-processing module (Claims 5-7, 9); deciper module (Claim 10); a multilateration module (Claim 11-12); an estimator (Claim 13); a collimator, a lens or a fiber optic connector (Claim 16); fiber optics, a fiber optic beam splitter (Claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Computation module (Claim 1, 5, 10, 11, 13)
Chirplet pre-processing module (Claim 5, 6, 7, 9)
Decipher module (Claim 10, 12)
Multilateration module (Claim 11, 12)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claim limitations “Computation module (Claim 1, 5, 10, 11, 13), Chirplet pre-processing module (Claim 5, 6, 7, 9), Decipher module (Claim 10, 12), Multilateration module (Claim 11, 12)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure used for the listed claim limitations such a “CPU, Computer, image processor or a processor” for preforming the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-4, 8, 14-20 are rejected because of there dependency on claims listed above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed above, claims 1, 5-7, 9-13 is indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification. Because there is inadequate disclose of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Massey et al. (2006/0187470).
Claim 1
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses a system for optical metrology, the system comprising: one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10; optical metrology sensor assembly) communicatively (light source producing a beam is the communication) coupled with one or more optical metric markers (Fig. 1, Ref. 16; reflector cube corner); a computation module (Fig. 6, Ref. 65; control processor) communicatively coupled with the one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10), wherein the computation module (Fig. 6, Ref. 65) is configured to receive data from the one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) and one or more optical metric markers (Fig. 1, Ref. 16)(Para. 0055); and a transmission structure with one or more surfaces (Fig. 5, Characterized Structure), wherein the one or more optical metric markers (Fig. 5, Ref. 51) are located on the one or more surfaces (Fig. 5, Characterized Structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
520
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses at least one optical design of an emitted signal from the one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) comprises a circular or elliptical cone (Para. 0054).
Claim 4
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the transmission structure (Fig. 5, Characterized Structure) comprises a space object (Para. 0001; spacecraft structures).
Claim 14
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses one or more physical attributes of the one or more optical metric markers are adjustable (Fig. 5, Ref. 51; the markers Ref. 51 are adjustable for being place in different positions on the characterized structure).
Claim 15
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses changing the one or more physical attributes (Having more than one reflector Ref. 51) increases an ability of the system to identify adjustments in RF transmission (Therefore, having more than one reflector Ref. 51 allows the system to identify changes in the transmission)(Para. 0049).
Claim 16
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses one or more sensors comprise one or more of a collimator, a lens, or a fiber optic connector (Fig. 1, Ref. 14, 15; lenses).
Claim 17
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) periodically transmits one or more optical signals to the one or more optical metric markers (Fig. 1, Ref. 16) (Para. 0044; modulation source).
Claim 18
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the one or more optical signals transmit a delayed intervals (time delay), wherein the delayed intervals differentiate information received by the one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10)(Para.0057).
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) 2, 5-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Massey et al. (2006/0187470).
Claim 2
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for one or more a shape, a size, or a coating of the one or more optical metric markers define a range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with a shape, a size, or a coating of the optical marker since it was well known in the art that shape and size of markers are crucial for accurately measuring the dimensions and geometrics of objects being inspected, therefore the optical metrology system can achieve high-resolution and high-precision measurements.
Claims 5-8
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for a chirplet pre-processing module communicatively coupled with the computation module or one or more sensors, wherein the chirplet pre-processing module is configured to calculate a range velocity and a corrected range or one or more sensors detect motion; the chirplet pre-processor receives OFDR frequency data and the OFDR frequency data comprise a Fourier transform of the time data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with chirplet pre-processing module and functions listed above since it was well known in the art that using a chirplet pre-processing module allows for the analysis of signals whose frequency content changes over time, therefore allowing the transforms to extract information from signals for improved accuracy of range velocity and corrected range calculation.
Claim 9
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for chirplet pre-processor limits risk of inaccuracies due to structural vibrations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with chirplet pre-processor listed above since it was well known in the art that a chirplet pre-processor is used to limit the risk of inaccuracies by applying a series of mathematical transformations and filters to help smooth out the signals which reduce the effects of vibration, therefore enhancing the accuracy of the measurements.
Claim 10
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for a decipher module is configured to associate a range with one or more sensors and one or more optical metric markers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with a decipher module since it was well known in the art that a decipher module ensures that each measurement is correctly linked to its corresponding sensor or optical marker, therefore maintaining the systems accuracy and reliability.
Claim 11, 12
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for a multilateration module communicatively coupled with the computation module, wherein the multilateration module is configured to translate a range into a coordinate or multilateration module periodically receives a range and a first range rate set with sensor and optical metric marker metadata from the deciphering module and output coordinates of correlated sensors and optical metric markers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with a multilateration module since it was well known in the art that using a multilateration module can accurately determine the position of an object by calculating the distance to multiple known locations, therefore helping to achieve a more reliable and repeatable measurement.
Claim 13
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for an estimator communicatively coupled with the computation module, wherein the estimator is configured to characterize a structure from information from the computation module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with an estimator since it was well known in the art that an estimator is used to convert raw, indirect optical signals into high-precision data with complex data fitting and noise reduction, therefore allowing for high-speed detection.
Claim 19
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the claimed invention except for fiber optics of predetermined lengths between a fiber optic beam splitter and position sensors, wherein the predetermined lengths at partially define a signal delay. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Massey et al. (2006/0187470) with fiber optics and fiber optic beam splitter listed above since it was well known in the art that having predetermined fiber optic path lengths with a fiber optic beams splitter ensures that the optical signals are precisely timed and synchronized for accurate phase-based measurement, therefore allowing the device to distinguish, isolate, and accurately measure signals from multiple points or paths.
Claim 20
Massey et al. (2006/0187470) discloses the one or more signal delays (time delay) form a unique and identifiable range (two-dimensional position) based at least partially on measurements from each of the one or more sensors (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) (Para. 0057).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 February 25, 2026