DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6,11-16,20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim1,14 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 1,14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: transmitting the first signal and transmitting the second signal. A signal cannot be received unless it is first transmitted, or created or originated from somewhere.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4,11-15,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9233763 B1(Chen) in view of US 20220206514 A1 (Tazume).
Claim 1 and 14 (mutatis mutandis). Chen teaches a method of detecting a fault in a plurality of optical detectors comprising:
receiving a first return beam from a first optical detector interrogation beam to generate a first optical signal indicative of an atmospheric condition (col 3 lines 36-41 note the sensor can sense a lot of things including humidity of environment) […];
receiving a second return beam from a second optical detector interrogation beam to generate a second optical signal indicative of the atmospheric condition (col 3 lines 36-41 note the sensor can sense a lot of things including humidity of environment)[…];
and comparing each of the first and second optical signals with a baseline value to determine whether there is a fault in at least one optical detector of the plurality of optical detectors (col 5 line 20-55 note sensor signal from the sensor is compared with reference signal. There are four sensors.).
Chen fails to explicitly teach that the sensors are located in different locations. However, Tazume teaches a first sensor in the first location and a second sensor in second location (para 69-70 note lidar sensors on the front and back surface of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chen and Tazume and modify the method such that the first sensor is located in first location and the second sensor is located in second location. The motivation to do so would be to reduce errors in measurement values by having measurement values from different locations.
Claim 2. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first optical signal includes an amplitude and/or a decay rate of the first optical return beam, and wherein the second optical signal includes an amplitude and/or a decay rate of the second optical return beam (Chen col 5 line 20-55 note inherently the optical return signals will have amplitude).
Claim 3. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the baseline value includes a predetermined range for each of the first and second optical signals, wherein a fault is determined when the amplitude and/or decay rate of the first and/or second optical return beam is outside of a respective predetermined range (Chen col 5 line 20-55).
Claim 4. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the respective predetermined ranges include a range specific to a given portion of a flight envelope or a given cloud condition (Chen col 4 lines 1-20 ,col 3 lines 20-60, and col 5 line 20-55).
Claim 11. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, interrogating the atmosphere from the first location and interrogating the atmosphere from the second location (Tazume para 69-70 note lidar sensors on the front and back surface of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chen and Tazume and modify the method such that the first sensor is located in first location and the second sensor is located in second location. The motivation to do so would be to reduce errors in measurement values by having measurement values from different location.
Claim 12. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first location and the second location are different (Tazume para 69-70 note lidar sensors on the front and back surface of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chen and Tazume and modify the method such that the first sensor is located in first location and the second sensor is located in second location . The motivation to do so would be to reduce errors in measurement values by having measurement values from different location.
Claim 13. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first location and the second location are on opposite sides of the aircraft from one another (Tazume para 69-70 note lidar sensors on the front and back surface of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to have combined the references of Chen and Tazume and modify the method such that the first location and the second location are on opposite sides of the aircraft from one another. The motivation to do so would be to reduce errors in measurement values by having measurement values from different locations.
Claim 15. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the system of claim 14. Chen teaches wherein the baseline value includes a predetermined range (col 5 line 20-55), wherein the first optical signal includes an amplitude and/or a decay rate of the first optical return beam (col 5 line 20-55 note inherently the optical return signals will have amplitude), and wherein the second optical signal includes an amplitude and/or a decay rate of the second optical return beam (col 5 line 20-55 note inherently the optical return signals will have amplitude), wherein the controller is configured to indicate a fault has occurred when the amplitude and/or decay rate of the first and/or second optical return beam is outside of a respective predetermined range for a given portion of a flight envelope or a given cloud condition (col 4 lines 1-20 ,col 3 lines 20-60, and col 5 line 20-55).
Claim 20. (ORIGINAL) Chen as modified in view of Tazume teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the first and second optical detectors include optical ice detectors (Chen col 3 lines 1-25 note ice detection subsystem and lines 25-60 note each of the various sub-systems can each include one or more sensors to facilitate measurement, it is common to have redundant sensors (e.g., triple redundant or quad-redundant) in the event of sensor failure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5,6,16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5-6,16, the closest prior art, neither alone nor in combination, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention in such a way that the combination of limitations would be rendered anticipatory or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant, nor would there exist a reasonable motivation to combine prior art with similar components in such a way that does not render the original invention inoperable for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDA NASER whose telephone number is (571)272-5233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
/SANJIDA NASER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
