DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12-14 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.
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, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson et al. US 2004/0036630 hereinafter referred to as Jamieson in view of Spuler et al. US 2017/0212219 hereinafter referred to as Spuler.
In regards to claim 1, Jameison teaches:
“A system comprising: an optical ice detection (OID) sub-system optically coupled to illumination and light collection optics”
Jameison paragraph [0017] and Figure 1, inter alia, teaches an advanced warning ice detection (AWID) system 10 using Raman LIDAR techniques. Jamieson paragraph [0019] teaches if the reflections at 355 nm are separated by polarization and a photon quantity of each polarization is measured, a ratio of the polarization quantities may be used to determine if water or ice crystals are present in the conical region of the laser pulses ahead of the aircraft.
“and a water vapor [detection] sub-system optically coupled to the illumination and light collection optics”
Jameison Figure 1 and paragraph [0019] teaches The ratio of S.sub.O1 to S.sub.O2 compares the light quantities of the polarization states of the elastic or reflective back scatterings to determine if ice crystals or water vapor is present in the region of airspace ahead of the aircraft being monitored by the laser pulses. If this ratio is at or near unity, then ice crystals are considered present in the monitored region. Otherwise, water vapor or some other aerosol particles are present.
“wherein the OID sub-system and the [water vapor] sub-system share at least a portion of an optical path through the illumination and light collection optics”
Jamieson paragraph [0020] and Figure 1 teaches a telescope 28 may be disposed in the optical path 26 to collect the back scatterings of light and converge and focus the light to a substantially narrow beam which is guided along an optical path 30.
Jamieson does not explicitly teach:
“[water vapor] differential absorption LIDAR (WV-DIAL) [sub-system share at least a portion of the optical path]” and “WV-DIAL”
Spuler paragraph [0027] and Figure 1 teaches micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100. Micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100 includes a beam transmitter 200, a shared optics and telescope 300, an optical receiver 400, and an electronics 500. Micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100 is a LIDAR that can operate with two separate lasers. For example, micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100 may be a differential absorption LIDAR used to detect water vapor, or another molecular species. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jamison in view of Spuler to have included the features of “[water vapor] differential absorption LIDAR (WV-DIAL) [sub-system share at least a portion of the optical path]” and “WV-DIAL” because greater stability and a larger beam expansion, required for eye safety in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, can be achieved with a shared telescope design approach which utilizes the receiver telescope to expand and transmit the outgoing laser beam (Spuler [0004]).
In regards to claim 7, Jamieson/Spuler teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the WV-DIAL sub- system includes a first illuminator configured to emit illumination in an absorption band for water vapor, and a second illuminator configured to emit illumination in a non-absorption band in an adjacent absorption trough for water vapor adjacent to the absorption band”
Spuler paragraph [0007] teaches DIAL utilizes a laser transmitter capable of operating at two closely spaced wavelengths, one wavelength which is located at or near the absorption feature for the molecule of interest, referred to as the online wavelength and the other located away from the same absorption feature, referred to as the offline wavelength. If the online and offline wavelengths are closely spaced, then the only difference between the return signals results from molecular absorption. Spuler paragraph [0028] teaches Micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100 includes beam transmitter 200. Beam transmitter 200 includes a first laser 202, an second laser 204. Spuler paragraph [0030] teaches First laser 202 and second laser 204 are each operable to generate a transmission beam. In embodiments, first laser 202 may produce an online frequency selected to produce an on-resonance absorption response, and second laser 204 may produce an offline frequency selected to produce an off-resonance absorption response for a molecular species of interest. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jamison in view of Spuler to have included the features of “wherein the WV-DIAL sub- system includes a first illuminator configured to emit illumination in an absorption band for water vapor, and a second illuminator configured to emit illumination in a non-absorption band in an adjacent absorption trough for water vapor adjacent to the absorption band” because greater stability and a larger beam expansion, required for eye safety in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, can be achieved with a shared telescope design approach which utilizes the receiver telescope to expand and transmit the outgoing laser beam (Spuler [0008]).
In regards to claim 8, Jamieson/Spuler teach all the limitations of claim 7 and further teach:
“wherein the absorption band is in a near IR band ranging from 780 to 2500 nm”
Spuler paragraph [0060] and Figure 2B teach etalon 402 may be designed to provide an FSR that is substantially equivalent to the difference between an online and an offline wavelength for differential absorption LIDAR applications. Advantageously, selecting the FSR to be substantially the same as the distance between the online and offline wavelengths may allow etalon 402 to be operated without tuning during operation. Spuler paragraph [0056] teaches It may be seen in FIG. 2B that example etalon 402 allows two narrow spectral lines to pass. FIG. 2B depicts an example etalon transmission measurement made with a prototype micropulse differential absorption LIDAR 100. The Examiner interprets from Figure 2B the wavelengths are approximately 828nm. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jamison in view of Spuler to have included the features of “wherein the absorption band is in a near IR band ranging from 780 to 2500 nm” because greater stability and a larger beam expansion, required for eye safety in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, can be achieved with a shared telescope design approach which utilizes the receiver telescope to expand and transmit the outgoing laser beam (Spuler [0008]).
In regards to claim 9, Jamieson/Spuler teach all the limitations of claim 8 and further teach:
“wherein the non-absorption band is within 1.3 nm of a peak of the absorption band”
Spuler Figure 2B illustrates the peaks are less than 1.3nm apart. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jamison in view of Spuler to have included the features of “wherein the non-absorption band is within 1.3 nm of a peak of the absorption band” because greater stability and a larger beam expansion, required for eye safety in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, can be achieved with a shared telescope design approach which utilizes the receiver telescope to expand and transmit the outgoing laser beam (Spuler [0008]).
In regards to claim 11, Jamieson/Spuler teach all the limitations of claim 7 and further teach:
“wherein the WV-DIAL sub- system includes a sensor configured to detect returned illumination in the absorption band and in the non-absorption band”
Spuler paragraph [0076] and Figure 1 teaches For each of the photon counters 412 and 416, full overlap occurs when the image of the return signal beam diameter is less than the diameter of the field stop. FIG. 4 depicts the overlap between the return signal at photon counters 412 and 416 in an example embodiment. FIG. 4 The Examiner interprets that the photon counters are sensors used to detect the returned illumination in both bands. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jamison in view of Spuler to have included the features of “wherein the WV-DIAL sub- system includes a sensor configured to detect returned illumination in the absorption band and in the non-absorption band” because greater stability and a larger beam expansion, required for eye safety in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations, can be achieved with a shared telescope design approach which utilizes the receiver telescope to expand and transmit the outgoing laser beam (Spuler [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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 E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights