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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn. The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as used in the current rejection.
In response to amended limitation “a first and a second octagon shaped photoelectric sensor ring spaced a known distance apart” newly found reference Giles is looked to. Gilies discloses set of octagonal rings through which objects are passed through.
Concerning Applicants arguments that there would be no reason to modify or that the modification of Steffl to provide for octagonal shape, and that there would be no reason to break the continuity into an octagon, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Giles teaches advantages from the shape of the sensor ring and the arrangement of the emitters and receivers, at least one advantage is detailed as “Most commercial radiation sensing means have a total sensitivity angle of about 60.degree. and therefore a suitable arrangement at lowest expense can be obtained if the above mentioned polygon is a hexagon”.
Concerning arguments in regards to velocity calculation, “forcing a light-based system to operate via voltage changes requires a complete overhaul of the device architecture” and the combination of Steffl with Bailey, here Bailey is within the same field of endeavor, using the interruption of light to determine a time for an objects to pass. Steffl suggests using a change in voltage as a light beam is interrupted, but does not expressly disclose, and Bailey is looked to for providing the recorded voltage change time.
Concerning comments that “The claimed invention introduces voltage changes, which require conductive paths, physical circuitry, and galvanic connections. Voltage systems must inherently contend with electrical resistance, parasitic capacitance, thermal dissipation, and EMI/RFI shielding-challenges that are entirely absent in the primary reference's optical system,” it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies 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).
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.
Claim 1, 8 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “wherein said known distance is calculated”. However, this is not seen in the specification. In claim 1 and the specification the distance between the two rings is defined as the known distance, [0018] “the device includes a first and a second photoelectric sensor ring 102, 103 spaced a known distance apart”. This distance is not seen as determined by being calculated.
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.
Claim 1-14 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation “wherein said known distance is calculated”. However, it is not clear from the claims or the specification what is meant by the limitation. Does this mean the distance between the rings is calculated prior to speed measurement? Is the calculation part of a process during speed measurement?
Claim 1 begins with “sensor ring a known distance apart” than “said known distance is calculated” and “said calculated distance between said first and second rings is divided by said recorded voltage change time”, If the distance is a known distance, how does this match with the statement that the distance is calculated?
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 1-4, 7-11, 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl (US 9157731) in view of Bailey et al (US 4272189) in view of Giles (US 4890500).
In regards to claim 1, Steffl discloses a device for measuring velocity of an object comprising:
a first and a second photoelectric sensor ring spaced a known distance apart (Fig. 7 refs. 32, NOTE ring is interpreted as surrounding or encircling arrangement);
wherein a signal is transmitted between said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7 LBA, C3:43 “FIG. 1 projecting means 6 is detected by receiving means 8 within the first LBA and projecting means 7 is detected by receiving means 9 within the second LBA”) and is measured at a predefined rate (C3:59 "FIG. 2 shows the major elements of the apparatus for a particular embodiment. The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate");
wherein said known distance is calculated (as best understood, the distance is known and used in calculation for speed/velocity);
while Steffl discloses: wherein an object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal (Claim 1 "detecting means for detecting the blockage of each beam of light from the projecting means by the spherical object"),
Steffl does not expressly disclose: the object passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal and causing a change in voltage;
Baily teaches a projectile velocity measuring device comprising a first and second sensor system, as projectiles move through the sensor systems, a change in measured voltage occurs and is used in determination of velocity (abstract "Trajectory and velocity parameters are determined by identifying which detectors have an interrupted light beam and from the time interval between actuation of the arrays", claim 2 "a threshold detector connected to the output of said amplifier for providing a detector output signal whenever the output of said amplifier exceeds a predetermined bias voltage").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the object passing through the first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking the signal causes a change in voltage in order to provide greater accuracy and is well known in the art for detectors.
Steffl as combined further discloses:
wherein time between said voltage change is recorded (Steffl C3:62 “The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate. These signals are then stored by the instrumentation means in a circular buffer or other type memory management arrangement for processing by the computer means”);
wherein said calculated distance between said first and second rings is divided by said recorded voltage change time to calculate said velocity of said object (Steffl C3:62 voltage recorded for object passing through rings “measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate. These signals are then stored by the instrumentation means in a circular buffer or other type memory management arrangement for processing by the computer means when an event of interest (such as the passing of a ball through the LBA) has taken place”, claim 4 "computing the velocity, trajectory, and position of the spherical object based on the times, a diameter of the spherical object, and a distance between the parallel rays of light").
Steffl does not expressly disclose: the first and second sensor ring are octagon shaped, and said first and second photoelectric sensor rings further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers;
Giles teaches an apparatus for detecting the passing of objects through octagon shaped sensor rings (Figs. 1 and 2, emitters ref. 2, sensor ref. 3), the emitters and sensors having a repeating pattern (as best seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Giles by providing the first and second sensor ring are octagon shaped and said first and second photoelectric sensor rings further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers in order to provide greater coverage for objects passing through the rings.
In regards to claim 2, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said device is scaled comprise a size, emitter/receiver power, and sensor ring distance to measure speeds in the range of 60-200 ft/s. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the means for the device to be sized such that the emitter/receiver power, and sensor ring distance are able to measure speeds in the range of 60-200 ft/s in order to allow for a greater number of object velocities to be measured, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 3, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, wherein said device can be scaled to measure objects in motion without regard to a minimum velocity (Steffl C2:61 "The launch point of the sphere is not part of the calculation nor are any other conditions of flight before or after the LBA such as the assumption of a straight line trajectory").
In regards to claim 4, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers.
Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system comprising housing for system parts, as suggested in Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers in order to provide protection for these devices and to make the system more compact.
In regards to claim 7, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk therebetween.
Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system wherein the emitters and detectors are differentiated from each other to prevent cross-talk from the emitter arrays are polarized, with adjacent emitters having perpendicular planes of polarization. The optical path of each photodetector contains a polarizing filter having a plane of polarization the same as that of the corresponding emitter. Therefore, the problem of cross-talk between channels caused by overlapping beams is overcome because each detector effectively sees only the corresponding emitter", C2:63 "In addition to polarizers, cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first and second emitters and the first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk or interference in measurements.
In regards to claim 8, Steffl discloses a device for measuring velocity of objects comprising: a first and a second photoelectric sensor ring spaced a known distance apart (detailed claim 1 rejection); said first photoelectric sensor ring further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers (detailed claim 1 rejection);
said second photoelectric sensor ring further comprising a corresponding pattern of first and second receivers and first and second emitters that correspond with said repeating pattern of said first photoelectric sensor ring (Steffl Fig. 7 ref. 32, receiver and emitter details mirrored in first and second sensor rings);
Steffl does not expressly disclose: wherein said first emitters and said first receivers have a first matched modulation frequency, and said second emitters and second receivers have a second matched modulation frequency;
Bailey teaches emitters and receivers matched (C2:45 "a detector respond to light only from its corresponding emitter") through modulation of emitted light (C2:63 "cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first emitters and the first receivers have a first matched modulation frequency and the second emitters and second receivers have a second matched modulation frequency in order to prevent or reduce cross-talk or interference.
Steffl as combined further discloses:
wherein a signal is transmitted between said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers and is measured at a predefined rate (Steffl C3:60 "The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate");
wherein said known distance is calculated (as best understood, the distance is known and used in calculation for speed/velocity);
while Steffl discloses: wherein an object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal (Claim 1 "detecting means for detecting the blockage of each beam of light from the projecting means by the spherical object"),
Steffl does not expressly disclose: the object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal and causing a change in voltage;
Baily teaches a projectile velocity measuring device comprising a first and second sensor system, as projectiles move through the sensor systems, a change in measured voltage occurs and is used in determination of velocity (abstract "Trajectory and velocity parameters are determined by identifying which detectors have an interrupted light beam and from the time interval between actuation of the arrays", claim 2 "a threshold detector connected to the output of said amplifier for providing a detector output signal whenever the output of said amplifier exceeds a predetermined bias voltage").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the object passing through the first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking the signal causes a change in voltage in order to provide greater accuracy and is well known in the art for detectors.
Steffl as combined further discloses:
wherein time between said voltage change is recorded (Steffl C3:62 “The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate. These signals are then stored by the instrumentation means in a circular buffer or other type memory management arrangement for processing by the computer means”);
wherein said calculated distance between said first and second rings is divided by said recorded voltage change time to calculate said velocity of said object (Steffl C2:62, claim 4 "computing the velocity, trajectory, and position of the spherical object based on the times, a diameter of the spherical object, and a distance between the parallel rays of light").
Steffl does not expressly disclose: the first and second sensor ring are octagon shaped, and said first and second photoelectric sensor rings further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers;
Giles teaches an apparatus for detecting the passing of objects through octagon shaped sensor rings (Figs. 1 and 2, emitters ref. 2, sensor ref. 3), the emitters and sensors having a repeating pattern (as best seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Giles by providing the first and second sensor ring are octagon shaped and said first and second photoelectric sensor rings further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers in order to provide greater coverage for objects passing through the rings.
In regards to claim 9, Steffl discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said device is scaled comprise a size, emitter/receiver power, and sensor ring distance to measure speeds in the range of 60-200 ft/s. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the means for the device to be sized such that the emitter/receiver power, and sensor ring distance are able to measure speeds in the range of 60-200 ft/s in order to allow for a greater number of object velocities to be measured, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 10, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, wherein said device is scaled to measure objects in motion without regard to a minimum velocity (Steffl C2:61 "The launch point of the sphere is not part of the calculation nor are any other conditions of flight before or after the LBA such as the assumption of a straight line trajectory").
In regards to claim 11, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers.
Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system comprising housing for system parts, as suggested in Fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers in order to provide protection for these devices and to make the system more compact.
In regards to claim 14, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk therebetween.
Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system wherein the emitters and detectors are differentiated from each other to prevent cross-talk (C1:40 "The beams from the emitter arrays are polarized, with adjacent emitters having perpendicular planes of polarization. The optical path of each photodetector contains a polarizing filter having a plane of polarization the same as that of the corresponding emitter. Therefore, the problem of cross-talk between channels caused by overlapping beams is overcome because each detector effectively sees only the corresponding emitter", C2:63 "In addition to polarizers, cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first and second emitters and the first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk or interference in measurements.
Claim 5, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl,
Bailey, Giles as applied to claim 1, 8 above, and further in view of Kolanek et al (US 9501055).
In regards to claim 5 and 12, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 1, 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said objects are infrared and radar frequency countermeasures that are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser.
However, Giles discloses a dispenser for directing objects through the rings to be measured (Fig. 1 ref. 7, C2:13 “Feeding means 7 for feeding particulate material through the center of the hexagonal support 1 are arranged over said support”), therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Fleisher with Giles by providing a dispenser for dispensing object through the sensor rings in order to direct placement of the objects for greatest sensor capture of the objects.
Kolanek teaches determining velocity of a countermeasure from a dispenser (dispenser seen in Fig. 2A ref. 200, Fig. 2B countermeasure/ejection vehicle ref. 400 claim 38 "the one or more engagement management modules are configured to: determine a velocity and position of the one or more eject vehicles after the one or more eject vehicles have been launched from the one or more dispensers").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Kolanek by providing the objects are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser in order to allow uses to receive information or to change the speed of the objects.
Claim 6, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl,
Bailey, Giles as applied to claim 1, 8 above, and further in view of Silin et al (US 5333855).
In regards to claim 6 and 13, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein each of said first and second octagon shaped photoelectric sensor rings comprise a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers configured in a repeating pattern comprising first emitter, second emitter, first receiver, second receiver.
Sillin teaches a sensor device comprising an alternating pattern of emitter, receiver (abstract “The emitters and detectors are alternated about the periphery of the frame, such that light emitters are located adjacent each of the light detectors” C7:30 “By providing the emitters and the detectors in an alternating relationship, the possibility of crosstalk between detectors is substantially reduced”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Silin by providing the first and second emitters and first and second receivers configured in a repeating pattern comprising first emitter, second emitter, first receiver, second receiver in order to avoid interference between the emitters or receivers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights