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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/1/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-24 and 26-27 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 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.
The claim limitation, “wherein the tunable optical filter comprises no magnets,” in claims 1, 11, 20, and 26 is new matter. Applicant points to Figs. 1-2 and 9 and paragraphs [0142], [0149], [0153]-[0154] for support, however, the figures only show the tunable optical filter in block diagram form with no component details, and the specification in whole does not describe the details of the tunable optical filter, there is a lack of description as to whether it comprises magnets or not. Silence is not generally sufficient to support a negative claim limitation, therefore the limitation is new matter.
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 1-24, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
In claims 1, 11, 20, and 26, the claim limitations reciting that a detector converts light into an optical signal, such as “a second detector converting the filtered reference light to a second optical signal,” and similarly, the claim limitations including, “first optical signal,” “second optical signal,” “third optical signal,” and “fourth optical signal,” in claims 1, 11, 20, and 16 are missing the structure that allows the conversion into an optical signal. Photodetectors inherently convert light into an electrical signal, not into another optical signal. There is no inherent “option” when using a photodetector to output either an electrical signal or an optical signal, it is always an electrical signal, unless there is additional structural connections that make the conversion into an optical signal. Further, in paragraph [0073] of the specification, it states, “Light data 44 can be encoded in electrical or optical signals that are sent to analyzer 214 in computer system for analysis.” This sentence implies there is an encoding structure that is missing from the claim in order to produce optical signals, given that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret/assume photodetectors to be encoding structures that output optical signals.
Claims 2-10, 12-19, 21-24, and 27 are also rejected based on their dependence of claims 1, 11, 20, and 26.
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 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, 15-16, 19-21, 23-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0027570 ("Caldwell") in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,983,844 ("Korevaar") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0202928 ("Abdulhalim") further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,257,085 ("Ulich") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0038977 ("Williams") further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0336656 ("Belansky").
Regarding claim 1, Caldwell discloses a method for sensing parameters of air, the method comprising:
emitting a projected component (143A, Fig. 2) of a laser radiation (142, Fig. 2) from a laser (141, Fig. 2) in an aircraft (102, Fig. 1) into a first beam splitter (143, Fig. 2) sending a first beam (143A, Fig. 2) into the air (144, Fig. 2) and a second beam (143B, Fig. 2) into a second beam splitter (145, Fig. 2) sending a third beam (159, Fig. 2) into a first detector (162, Fig. 2) converting the third beam into a first [electronic] signal (163, Fig. 2) and sending a fourth beam (160, Fig. 2) through an optical filter (152, Fig. 2) [for] filtering and transforming the fourth beam into a filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2);
receiving the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) in a second detector (165, Fig. 2) converting the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) to a second [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2);
gathering, using a telescope (149, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]), a backscatter light (148, Fig. 2) generated in air (144, Fig. 2) from the first beam (143A, Fig. 2) and forming a received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]) comprising laser transmission power fluctuation signals (paragraphs [0027], [0041]);
splitting, using a third beam splitter (151, Fig. 2), the received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2 into a fifth beam (150A, Fig. 2) and sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2);
receiving the fifth beam (150A, Fig. 2) in a photodetector (154, Fig. 2) converting the fifth beam (164, Fig. 2) into a third [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2);
receiving the sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2) in the optical filter (152, Fig. 2) [for] filtering the sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2) and transforming the sixth beam into a filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2);
receiving the filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2) into a third detector (153, Fig. 2) converting the filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2) into a fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2);
removing, in a computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2), the laser transmission power fluctuation signals in the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]);
normalizing, in the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the first [electronic] signal (163, Fig. 2), power fluctuations in the received backscatter light represented in the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0027]);
determining, in the computer system, a linewidth of the laser (paragraph [0071]);
determining, in the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the second [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2), frequencies and suppression features of the tunable optical filter (152, Fig. 2, paragraph [0028]); and
determining, by the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2) a set of parameters for the air (Abstract, paragraph [0023]), and the aircraft (102, Fig. 1, aircraft orientation angles, paragraphs [0018], [0021] ).
Caldwell does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the optical filter is tunable and comprises no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Korevaar teaches an atomic filter is tunable (col. 5, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable filter as disclosed by Korevaar in the device of Caldwell in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, a tunable optical filter that has no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Abdulhalim discloses a tunable optical filter that has no magnets (paragraph [0071], filter can be electrooptic, thermooptic, or liquid crystals, and not necessarily magnetooptic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable optical filter with no magnets as disclosed by Abdulhalim in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar in order to obtain faster tuning speeds while avoiding bulky components and magnetic shielding.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Ulich discloses a fixed wavelength laser can be used in place of a tunable laser (col. 11, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a fixed wavelength laser as disclosed by Ulich in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim as it is a smaller, less expensive laser.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich does not disclose that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Williams discloses determining object parameters in the air (object speed and direction, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine object parameters in the air as disclosed by Williams in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich in order to better discriminate objects in the air that are moving at different radial speeds than the aircraft.
Finally, Belansky discloses a sensor (220, Fig. 2) that sends data as an optical signal (via 250 and 260, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to us an optical signal for sending data as disclosed by Belansky in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, and Williams in order to provide complete electrical and electromagnetic interference isolation.
Regarding claim 2, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 1 and Caldwell further discloses: splitting (143, Fig. 2) the laser radiation (142, Fig. 2) into the projected component (143A, fig. 2) and the control component (143B, Fig. 2, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 1, and Caldwell further discloses:
generating backscatter light data (158, Fig. 2) from the filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2); generating reference light data (167, Fig. 2) from the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2); and determining the set of parameters for the aircraft using the backscatter light data and the reference light data (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 4, and Caldwell further discloses:
determining a set of features (see Fig. 3-7, frequency shift or signal strength are features, paragraphs [0032], [0078]) using at least one of the backscatter light data and the reference light data (paragraphs [0032]-[0033]); and
determining the set of parameters for the aircraft using the set of features (determines air speed from frequency shift, paragraphs [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 5, and Caldwell further discloses that the set of features comprises at least one of:
a frequency difference between a first minimum signal strength for the filtered reference light and a second minimum signal strength for the filtered backscatter light (Fig. 3, paragraph [0032]);
a width from a first point for a start in a signal strength reduction for the filtered backscatter light from a no signal strength change for the filtered backscatter light to a second point for a return to the no change signal strength change for the filtered backscatter light after reaching the second minimum signal strength for the filtered backscatter light; and
a signal strength difference between a first signal strength of the filtered reference light with no changes in a signal strength and a second signal strength of the filtered backscatter light with the no changes in the signal strength.
Regarding claim 9, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 1, and Korevaar further discloses that the tunable optical filter is a scanning atomic line filter (col. 5, lines 1-3, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, tuning requires scanning through different signal wavelengths, therefore Korevaar discloses a scanning atomic line filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a scanning tunable filter as disclosed by Korevaar in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, and Williams in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Regarding claim 10, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 1, and Caldwell further discloses that the set of parameters is selected from at least one of: air density (paragraph [0077]) or a presence of a group of objects (As explained in rejection of claim 1 above, Williams teaches object speed and direction, therefore, presence of objects, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Caldwell discloses a laser sensor system that comprises:
a laser beam generator (141, Fig. 2) in an aircraft (102, Fig. 1) configured to emit a projected component of a laser radiation (142, Fig. 2) into a first beam splitter (143, Fig. 2) configured to send a first beam (143A, Fig. 2) into an atmosphere (146, Fig. 2, paragraph [0023]) and a second beam (143B, Fig. 2) into a second beam splitter (145, Fig. 2) configured to:
send a third beam (159, Fig. 2) into a first detector (162, Fig. 2) configured to convert the third beam into a first [electronic] signal (163, Fig. 2); and
send a fourth beam (160, Fig. 2) through an optical filter (152, Fig. 2) configured to filter the fourth beam and transform the fourth beam into a filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2);
a second detector (165, Fig. 2) configured to receive the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) and convert the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) to a second [electronic] signal (159, Fig. 2);
a telescope (149, Fig. 2) configured to gather a backscatter light (148, Fig. 2) generated in the atmosphere (146, Fig. 2) from the first beam (143A, Fig. 2) and form a received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]) that comprises laser transmission power fluctuation signals (paragraphs [0027], [0041]);
a third beam splitter (151, Fig. 2) configured to split the received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2) into a fifth beam (150A, Fig. 2) and sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2);
a photodetector (154, Fig. 2) configured to convert the fifth beam (164, Fig. 2) into a third [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2);
wherein the tunable optical filter (152, Fig. 2) is further configured to receive the sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2), filter it, and transform the sixth beam [into] a filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2);
a third detector (153, Fig. 2) configured to receive and convert the filtered backscatter light into a fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2);
a computer system (156, Fig. 2) configured to:
remove, based upon the third electronic signal (155, Fig. 2), representations of the laser transmission power fluctuation signals in the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]);
normalize, based upon the first electronic signal, power fluctuations in the received backscatter light represented in the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0027]);
determine a linewidth of the [laser] (paragraph [0071]);
determine, based upon the second [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2), frequencies and suppression features of the tunable optical filter (152, Fig. 2, paragraph [0028]); and
determine, based upon the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2), a set of parameters for the atmosphere (Abstract, paragraph [0023]), and the aircraft (102, Fig. 1, aircraft orientation angles, paragraphs [0018], [0021]).
Caldwell does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the optical filter is tunable and comprises no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Korevaar teaches an atomic filter is tunable (col. 5, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable filter as disclosed by Korevaar in the device of Caldwell in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, a tunable optical filter that has no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Abdulhalim discloses a tunable optical filter that has no magnets (paragraph [0071], filter can be electrooptic, thermooptic, or liquid crystals, and not necessarily magnetooptic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable optical filter with no magnets as disclosed by Abdulhalim in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar in order to obtain faster tuning speeds while avoiding bulky components and magnetic shielding.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Ulich discloses a fixed wavelength laser can be used in place of a tunable laser (col. 11, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a fixed wavelength laser as disclosed by Ulich in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim as it is a smaller, less expensive laser.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich does not disclose that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Williams discloses determining object parameters in the air (object speed and direction, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine object parameters in the air as disclosed by Williams in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich in order to better discriminate objects in the air that are moving at different radial speeds than the aircraft.
Finally, Belansky discloses a sensor (220, Fig. 2) that sends data as an optical signal (via 250 and 260, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to us an optical signal for sending data as disclosed by Belansky in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich and Williams in order to provide complete electrical and electromagnetic interference isolation.
Regarding claim 12, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 11, and Korevaar further discloses that the tunable optical filter is a scanning atomic line filter (col. 5, lines 1-3, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, tuning requires scanning through different signal wavelengths, therefore Korevaar discloses a scanning atomic line filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a scanning tunable filter as disclosed by Korevaar in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Williams in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Regarding claim 13, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 11, and Caldwell further discloses that the laser beam generator (141, Fig. 2) comprises the first beam splitter (143, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 11, and Caldwell further discloses that the computer system comprises an analyzer (a computer is inherently an analyzer) is configured to:
determine a set of features (see Fig. 3-7, frequency shift or signal strength are features, paragraphs [0032], [0078]) from all the [electronic] signals (paragraphs [0032]-[0033], also as explained rejection of claim 1 above, use of optical signals is taught by Belansky); and
determine the set of parameters of the aircraft using the set of features (determines air speed from frequency shift, paragraphs [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 15, and Caldwell further discloses that the set of features comprises at least one of:
a frequency difference between a first minimum signal strength for the filtered reference light and a second minimum signal strength for the filtered backscatter light (Fig. 3, paragraph [0032]);
a width from a first point for a start in a signal strength reduction for the filtered backscatter light from a no signal strength change for the filtered backscatter light to a second point for a return to the no change signal strength change for the filtered backscatter light after reaching the second minimum signal strength for the backscatter light; and
a signal strength difference between a first signal strength of the filtered reference light with no changes in the signal strength and a second signal strength of the filtered backscatter light with the no changes in the signal strength.
Regarding claim 19, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 11, and Caldwell further discloses that the set of parameters is selected from at least one of a speed, a direction of travel, a temperature, air density, an angle of sideslip, an angle of attack, or a presence of a group of objects (Abstract, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Caldwell discloses a method for sensing parameters of air, the method comprising:
generating laser radiation (142, Fig. 2) with a laser (141, Fig. 2) into a first beam splitter (143, Fig. 2) sending a first beam (143A, Fig. 2) into the air (144, Fig. 2) and a second beam (143B, Fig. 2) into a second beam splitter (145, Fig. 2) sending a third beam (159, Fig. 2) into a first detector (162, Fig. 2) converting the third beam into a first [electronic] signal (163, Fig. 2) and sending a fourth beam (160, Fig. 2) through an optical filter (152, Fig. 2) [for] filtering and transforming the fourth beam into a filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2);
receiving the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) in a second detector (165, Fig. 2) converting the filtered reference light (164, Fig. 2) to a second [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2);
gathering, using a telescope (149, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]), a backscatter light (148, Fig. 2) generated in the air (144, Fig. 2) from the first beam (143A, Fig. 2) and forming a received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]) comprising laser transmission power fluctuation signals (paragraphs [0027], [0041]);
splitting, using a third beam splitter (151, Fig. 2), the received backscatter light (150, Fig. 2 into a fifth beam (150A, Fig. 2) and sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2);
receiving the fifth beam (150A, Fig. 2) in a photodetector (154, Fig. 2) converting the fifth beam (164, Fig. 2) into a third [electronic signal] (167, Fig. 2);
receiving the sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2) in the optical filter (152, Fig. 2) [for] filtering the sixth beam (150B, Fig. 2) and transforming the sixth beam into a filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2);
receiving the filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2) into a third detector (153, Fig. 2) converting the filtered backscatter light (157, Fig. 2) into a fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2);
removing, in a computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2), the laser transmission power fluctuation signals in the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]);
normalizing, in the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the first [electronic] signal (163, Fig. 2), power fluctuations in the received backscatter light represented in the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2, paragraph [0027]);
determining, in the computer system, a linewidth of the laser (paragraph [0071]);
determining, in the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the second [electronic] signal (167, Fig. 2), frequencies and suppression features of the optical filter (152, Fig. 2, paragraph [0028]); and
determining, by the computer system (156, Fig. 2) using the third [electronic] signal (155, Fig. 2) and the fourth [electronic] signal (158, Fig. 2) a set of parameters for the air (Abstract, paragraph [0023]).
Caldwell does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the optical filter is tunable and comprises no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Korevaar teaches an atomic filter is tunable (col. 5, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable filter as disclosed by Korevaar in the device of Caldwell in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, a tunable optical filter that has no magnets, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Abdulhalim discloses a tunable optical filter that has no magnets (paragraph [0071], filter can be electrooptic, thermooptic, or liquid crystals, and not necessarily magnetooptic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a tunable optical filter with no magnets as disclosed by Abdulhalim in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar in order to obtain faster tuning speeds while avoiding bulky components and magnetic shielding.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim does not disclose a fixed wavelength laser, that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Ulich discloses a fixed wavelength laser can be used in place of a tunable laser (col. 11, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a fixed wavelength laser as disclosed by Ulich in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim as it is a smaller, less expensive laser.
Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich does not disclose that the detector converts light to an optical signal, nor determining object parameters in the air.
However, Williams discloses determining object parameters in the air (object speed and direction, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine object parameters in the air as disclosed by Williams in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar and Abdulhalim and Ulich in order to better discriminate objects in the air that are moving at different radial speeds than the aircraft.
Finally, Belansky discloses a sensor (220, Fig. 2) that sends data as an optical signal (via 250 and 260, Fig. 2, paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to us an optical signal for sending data as disclosed by Belansky in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, and Williams in order to provide complete electrical and electromagnetic interference isolation.
Regarding claim 21, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 20, and Caldwell further discloses comprising the computer system:
processing the one or more of the [electronic] signals (155, 158, 163, 167, Fig. 2) to determine a Doppler shift (paragraphs [0032]-[0034]); and
processing [the] Doppler shift determination to determine a speed of an aircraft (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 23, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 21, and Caldwell further discloses that the second beam (143B, Fig. 2) may be a control component (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 24, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 21, and Caldwell further discloses that the laser radiation (142, Fig. 2) is projected along at a plurality of axes (147, Fig. 2, paragraph [0021]), wherein the Doppler shift is determined along each of the axes, and wherein the Doppler shift along each of the axes is used to determine speed and direction (paragraphs [0006], [0021], [0037]).
Claims 3, 7-8, 14, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,502,558 ("Menders").
Regarding claim 3, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose sweeping the tunable optical filter over a range of frequencies.
However, Menders discloses sweeping the tunable optical filter over a range of frequencies (col. 5, lines 63-67) while filtering the received backscatter light (17, Fig. 1) and fourth beam (10, Fig. 1) to form the filtered backscatter light and filtered reference light (10 and 17 are both filtered, see col. 2, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sweep the tunable optical filter as disclosed by Menders in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky in order to measure desired parameters with increased accuracy.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky further in view of Menders discloses the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose that the range of frequencies is about plus or minus 20 GHz, or about plus or minus 0.0017 percent, about a center frequency.
However, the specific range of frequencies is a design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the tunable optical filter to be able to sweep a specific range of frequencies as desired for a particular application, such as allowing measurements of positive and negative velocities with a certain precision.
Regarding claim 14, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the laser sensor system of claim 11, but does not disclose that the tunable optical filter is configured to sweep over a range of frequencies while filtering the received backscatter light to form the filtered backscatter light; and the tunable optical filter is configured to sweep over the range of frequencies while filtering the fourth beam to form the filtered reference light.
However, Menders discloses sweeping the tunable optical filter system over a range of frequencies (col. 5, lines 63-67) while filtering the received backscatter light (17, Fig. 1) and a fourth beam (10, Fig. 1) to form the filtered backscatter light and filtered reference light (10 and 17 are both filtered, see col. 2, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sweep the tunable optical filter as disclosed by Menders in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky in order to measure desired parameters with increased accuracy.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky further in view of Menders discloses laser sensor system of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose that the range of frequencies is about plus or minus 20 GHz, or about plus or minus 0.0017 percent, about a center frequency.
However, the specific range of frequencies is design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the tunable optical filter to be able to sweep a specific range of frequencies as desired for a particular application such as allowing measurements of positive and negative velocities with a certain precision.
Regarding claim 22, Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky discloses the method of claim 21, but does not disclose that the tunable optical filter is a scanning atomic line filter.
However, Menders discloses that the tunable optical filter (22, Fig. 1) is a scanning atomic line filter (col. 5, lines 63-67, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, tuning requires sweeping through frequencies, therefore Menders discloses a scanning atomic line filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a scanning tunable filter as disclosed by Menders in the device of Caldwell in view of Korevaar, Abdulhalim, Ulich, Williams, and Belansky in order to detect Doppler shifts in a signal laser beam due to scattering off of moving aerosols.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, 20, and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878