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 amendment filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 5. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered The Applicant of the instant application in paragraphs [0004-0005] recites scenarios: “Sometimes it is necessary to shape .. the optical ideal to conform to other requirements of the host platform. Windows adapted in this way are known as conformal windows [0004]; For example, in applications where the optical system is mounted on a platform intended to travel at high speed, a planer or hemisphere window can be detrimental to the aerodynamics of the platform, [0005]; An alternative solution is to use a window with a conformal external surface geometry that is more aerodynamic .. to correct for the aberrations created as a result of the non-ideal optical geometry of the environmental window, [0007]”, “In the currently used method for designing a system using .. the desired conformal outer surface geometry of the environmental window is produced by optimizing for the desired platform functionality, for example, aerodynamics” [0008],”. Therefore, the Applicant recites in instant application and the currently used method for designing a system use a window with a conformal surface geometry, but the desired conformal surface geometry of the environmental window is produced in various ways.
The primary reference Knapp teaches window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome, [0023]; Fig. 1 shows that 24/30 is non-hemispherical, non-planar; a transmission optical corrector 34, [0025], an optical train 36, [0026], Fig. 1; a sensor 40, [0027]. But doesn’t doesn't explicitly teach designing and configuring using matched surface sagitta equations, wherein the surface sagitta equations each include: a base biconic equation.
The Applicant argues “Heacock does not disclose an environmental window and a corrector and thus cannot disclose the feature of "designing and configuring a surface geometry of the environmental window and a surface geometry..." and fails to remedy the deficiencies of Knapp as alleged”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 103, using a combination of references. The secondary reference Heacock is used in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to remedy only those deficiencies. The combination of references teaches all the limitations. The motivation for modifying Knapp to combine the teaching of Heacock is found in Heacock in page 3; brief summary of the invention. Therefore, the Examiner has met all requirements establishing a prima facie case, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Applicant amended claims 1 and 5 to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
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.
Amended Claims 1-7 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.
The added limitation of the amended claims 1 and 5 recite: “when the environmental window should conform to a surface of the surrounding platform”. The phrase "should conform" generally functions as expected to do or a recommendation, rather than an active, binding limitation. It is frequently used in standards, guidelines, and policies to signify a recommended practice or strong expectation, but often allows for deviations based on judgment. Furthermore, the added limitation is “when the environmental window should conform ..”. "When" in a sentence refers to the time, circumstance, or occasion something happens, the time in which something is done or comes about. Claims must clearly define the boundaries of the invention. If something should conform, it does not have to conform, making the claim scope uncertain.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp (US 2005/0030644, of record) in view of Heacock (WO01/88597, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Knapp teaches a method of configuring an electro-optical system, the electro-optical system (refer to US 2005/0030644) including:
a non-hemispherical, non-planar, environmental window (window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome, [0023]; Fig. 1 shows that 24/30 is non-hemispherical, non-planar);
a transmissive optical corrector (A transmission optical corrector 34, [0025], Fig. 1);
an optical train (An optical train 36, [0026], Fig. 1);
a sensor (sensor 40, [0027]) disposed to receive optical rays which pass through the window (Figs. 2-3), optical corrector and optical train; (FIG. 3 is a portion of the optical system of FIG. 2, and additionally showing the ray paths, [0016]) and
a steering means configured to steer a line of sight of the sensor about a field of regard (movable optical support 42, may be roll/nod gimbals and X-Y rotational gimbals {0028];; The movement characteristics of the optical support 42 are selected to permit the optical corrector 34, the optical train 36, and/or the sensor 40 to point in the desired directions; [0028]); wherein the method comprises: designing and configuring a surface geometry of the environmental window and a surface geometry of the optical corrector (The window 24 is a curved piece. window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome. In a preferred application the window 24 is rotationally symmetric about the boresight axis 26, [0023]; A nonspherically curved inner surface 30 of the window 24 is the concave surface of the window 24 that faces the inside of 22. A nonspherically curved outer surface 32 of the window 24 is the convex surface of the window 24 that faces outwardly. The shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal, i.e. of a map projection or a mathematical mapping, window 24. The shape of the inner surface 30 generally follows, but typically does not exactly duplicate, the shape of the outer surface 32. The window 24 in general has a spatially dependent curvature, [0024]; The transmission optical corrector 34 is a curved piece, [0025]); the environmental window should conform to a surface of the surrounding platform, (A nonspherical or conformal window is therefore beneficial to reducing drag and increasing the speed and range of the aircraft, [0005]; window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome that protrudes at least partially into the airstream of the flight vehicle 20, [0023]; shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal window 24, [0024]; the window 24 was an elliptically shaped conformal dome, [0035, 0040]).
Knapp teaches a nonspherical or conformal window is therefore beneficial to reducing drag and increasing the speed. However, available conformal windows introduce large wavefront aberrations into the sensor beam; [0005]; window 24 is illustrated as a … conformal nose dome that protrudes at least partially into the airstream of the flight vehicle 20, [0020]; The shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal window 24, largely for aerodynamic considerations. The shape of the inner surface 30 generally follows, but typically does not exactly duplicate, [0024]; any operable type of movable optical support 42 may be used, including, for example, roll/nod gimbals and X-Y rotational gimbals. Axial translation movements may also be used, either separately or in combination with the rotational movements. The movable optical support 42 may include a single movement or separate movements for any or all of the optical corrector 34, the optical train 36, and the sensor 40, but the various movements are coordinated either mechanically or electronically. The combination of movements of the movable optical support 42 allows the optical system 28 to be pointed in any desired rotational and azimuthal direction, [0028].
Knapp doesn’t explicitly teach designing and configuring using matched surface sagitta equations, wherein the surface sagitta equations each include:
a) a base biconic equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
37
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in which: Z is the Sagitta, whereby z=0 is located at an intersection of a surface and optical axis; c is curvature in x or y, where in x and y are orthogonal directions about the optical axis; k is conic constant in x or y; and cx=1/Rx cy=1/Ry R is radius of curvature in x or y; and
b) when the environmental window should conform to a surface of the surrounding platform, (Knapp teaches a nonspherical or conformal window is therefore beneficial to reducing drag and increasing the speed and range of the aircraft, [0005]; window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome that protrudes at least partially into the airstream of the flight vehicle 20, [0023]; shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal window 24, [0024]; the window 24 was an elliptically shaped conformal dome, [0035, 0040], see above),
using one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation;
to provide a substantially uniform wave front error and substantially uniform magnification across the field of regard; and
wherein surface sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, and where an additional term is considered meaningful when it alters the sagitta of any point on a surface by more than 100 nm from the base biconic equation.
Knapp and Heacock are related as imaging optical system.
Heacock teaches designing and configuring using matched surface sagitta equations, wherein the surface sagitta equations each include:
a) a base biconic equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
105
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which: Z is the Sagitta, whereby z=0 is located at an intersection of a surface and optical axis; c is curvature in x or y, where in x and y are orthogonal directions about the optical axis; k is conic constant in x or y; and cx=1/Rx cy=1/Ry R is radius of curvature in x or y.
(The surfaces 18 and 20 are defined by the following equation: ([see page 8]);
PNG
media_image3.png
225
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein surface sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, and where an additional term is considered meaningful when it alters the sagitta of any point on a surface by more than 100 nm from the base biconic equation (Fig. 1, An optical system 10; corrector lens 16 with surfaces 28 and 26; transmissive surface 20 of prism 14, [see first 5 paragraphs of the “Detailed description of the invention”; surface 20 is asymmetric aspheric surface. the asymmetric aspheric surface 20 is anamorphic aspheric surfaces, … surfaces may be employed as well such as a toroidal surface, a biconic surface, etc., [page 8, para 1]; The anamorphic aspheric surfaces 18 and 20 are defined by the following equation: [end of page 6 and beginning of page 7], 14 preferably has balanced optical power with respect to each of the optical surfaces as well as with respect to the tangential and the sagittal ray propagation throughout the system, It is noted that the term optical surface as used herein refers to a surface that intersects a ray once. Therefore, a physical surface that intersects a ray, for example, twice is considered as two optical surfaces. By balancing the power among the optical surfaces of the prism, ray bending, which is a major contributor to geometric distortions and chromatic aberrations, is minimized …. [see pages 6 to 10]), corrector lens 16 is formed and positioned so that the user's view of his environment through the optical system 10 is not distorted, [page 10, col. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Knapp for designing and configuring using matched surface sagitta equations as shown above, wherein the surface sagitta equations sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, as taught by Heacock for the predictable advantage of providing an enlarged virtual image with minimal geometric distortion, as taught by Heacock in [page 3; brief summary of the invention].
Regarding claim 2, The modified Knapp teaches the method according to claim 1, Heacock teaches wherein the corrector is a static corrector (elements fixed with respect to each other,[ page 12-13]; distance between the corrector lens and prism is fixed, claim 44).
Regarding claim 3, The modified Knapp teaches the method according to claim 1, Heacock teaches wherein the corrector has uniform refractive index (14 can be formed of a homogeneous material having an index of refraction n that is greater than or equal to 1, [page 7 para. 3]).
Regarding claim 4, The modified Knapp teaches the method according to claim 1, Heacock teaches wherein cx=cy and kx=ky, and the surface sagitta equation includes no further meaningful terms (Cx/Cy is between 0.8 and 1.28. [page 9 and page 11]). Regarding claim 5, Knapp teaches an electro-optical system (refer to US 2005/0030644) comprising:
a non-hemispherical, non-planar, environmental window (window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome, [0023]; Fig. 1 shows that 24/30 is non-hemispherical, non-planar);
a transmissive optical corrector (a transmission optical corrector 34, [0025], Fig. 1);
an optical train (An optical train 36, [0026], Fig. 1);
a sensor (sensor 40, [0027]) disposed to receive optical rays (Figs. 2-3) that have passed through the window (FIG. 3 is a portion of the optical system of FIG. 2, and additionally showing the ray paths, [0016]), optical corrector and optical train (FIG. 3 is a portion of the optical system of FIG. 2, and additionally showing the ray paths, [0016]);
and a steering means configured to steer the line of sight of the sensor about the field of regard (movable optical support 42 may be roll/nod gimbals and X-Y rotational gimbals {0028]; The movement characteristics of the optical support 42 are selected to permit the optical corrector 34, the optical train 36, and/or the sensor 40 to point in the desired directions; [0028]);
wherein a surface geometry of the environmental window and a surface geometry of the optical corrector (The window 24 is a curved piece. A nonspherically curved inner surface 30 of the window 24 is the concave surface of the window 24 that faces the inside of 22. A nonspherically curved outer surface 32 of the window 24 is the convex surface of the window 24 that faces outwardly. The shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal, i.e. of a map projection or a mathematical mapping, window 24. The shape of the inner surface 30 generally follows, but typically does not exactly duplicate, the shape of the outer surface 32. The window 24 in general has a spatially dependent curvature, [0024]; The transmission optical corrector 34 is a curved piece, [0025]).
Knapp teaches in [0028]: any operable type of movable optical support 42 may be used, including, for example, roll/nod gimbals and X-Y rotational gimbals. Axial translation movements may also be used, either separately or in combination with the rotational movements. The movable optical support 42 may include a single movement or separate movements for any or all of the optical corrector 34, the optical train 36, and the sensor 40, but the various movements are coordinated either mechanically or electronically. The combination of movements of the movable optical support 42 allows the optical system 28 to be pointed in any desired rotational and azimuthal direction,
Knapp doesn’t explicitly teach the surface geometry are defined by matched surface sagitta equations wherein the surface sagitta equations each include:
a) a base biconic equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
105
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which:
Z is the Sagitta, whereby z=0 is located at an intersection of a surface and optical axis; c is curvature in x or y, where in x and y are orthogonal directions about the optical axis; R is radius of curvature in x or y; k is conic constant in x or y, and
b) when the environmental window should conform to a surface of the surrounding platform, using one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation;
such as to achieve a substantially uniform wave front error and substantially uniform magnification across the field of regard, and
wherein surface sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, and where an additional term is considered meaningful when it alters the sagitta of any point on a surface by more than 100 nm from the base biconic equation.
Knapp and Heacock are related as imaging optical system.
Heacock teaches the surface geometry are defined by matched surface sagitta equations wherein the surface sagitta equations each include:
a) a base biconic equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
105
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which: Z is the Sagitta, whereby z=0 is located at an intersection of a surface and optical axis; c is curvature in x or y, where in x and y are orthogonal directions about the optical axis; k is conic constant in x or y; and cx=1/Rx cy=1/Ry R is radius of curvature in x or y, (The surfaces 18 and 20 are defined by the following equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
225
478
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, [see page 8]); and
b) when the environmental window should conform to a surface of the surrounding platform, (Knapp teaches a nonspherical or conformal window is therefore beneficial to reducing drag and increasing the speed and range of the aircraft, [0005]; window 24 is illustrated as a forward-facing, non-spherical, conformal nose dome that protrudes at least partially into the airstream of the flight vehicle 20, [0023]; shape of the outer surface 32 is selected, for a conformal window 24, [0024]; the window 24 was an elliptically shaped conformal dome, [0035, 0040], see above),
using one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation;
such as to achieve a substantially uniform wave front error and substantially uniform magnification across the field of regard, and
wherein surface sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, and where an additional term is considered meaningful when it alters the sagitta of any point on a surface by more than 100 nm from the base biconic equation (Fig. 1, An optical system 10; corrector lens 16 with surfaces 28 and 26; transmissive surface 20 of prism 14, [see first 5 paragraphs of the “Detailed description of the invention”; surface 20 is asymmetric aspheric surface. the asymmetric aspheric surface 20 is anamorphic aspheric surfaces, … surfaces may be employed as well such as a toroidal surface, a biconic surface, etc., [page 8, para 1]; The anamorphic aspheric surfaces 18 and 20 are defined by the following equation: [end of page 6 and beginning of page 7], 14 preferably has balanced optical power with respect to each of the optical surfaces as well as with respect to the tangential and the sagittal ray propagation throughout the system, It is noted that the term optical surface as used herein refers to a surface that intersects a ray once. Therefore, a physical surface that intersects a ray, for example, twice is considered as two optical surfaces. By balancing the power among the optical surfaces of the prism, ray bending, which is a major contributor to geometric distortions and chromatic aberrations, is minimized …. [see pages 6 to 10]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Knapp for designing and configuring using matched surface sagitta equations as shown above, wherein the surface sagitta equations sagitta equations are considered matched when they have a same number and form of meaningful additional terms, as taught by Heacock for the predictable advantage of providing an enlarged virtual image with minimal geometric distortion, as taught by Heacock in [page 3; brief summary of the invention].
Regarding claim 6, The modified Knapp teaches the method according to claim 1, Heacock teaches the surface sagitta equations each comprise: b) one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation (see equation in line 9 and 13 in page 8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Knapp include one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation, as taught by Heacock for the predictable advantage of providing an enlarged virtual image with minimal geometric distortion, as taught by Heacock in [page 3; brief summary of the invention].
Regarding claim 7, The modified Knapp teaches the electro-optical system according to claim 5, Heacock teaches wherein the surface sagitta equations each comprise: b) one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation. (see equation in line 9 and 13 in page 8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the electro-optical system of Knapp include one or more further terms that define aspheric and/or or free form deviations from the base biconic equation, as taught by Heacock for the predictable advantage of providing an enlarged virtual image with minimal geometric distortion, as taught by Heacock in [page 3; brief summary of the invention].
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 RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881