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 .
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 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 of this title, 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, 3, 4, 7-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. (US 2016/0282194) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 5,397,897).
In regard to claim 1, Barnett et al. disclose a detector, comprising a lens, a collimator hole, and an infrared sensor that are arranged on an optical path,
wherein the lens is configured to converge ambient light, and the ambient light comprises target area light and another area light (e.g., see “… portable electronic devices … accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor and either reducing aperture width or increasing the sensor-to-aperture distance. Placing a lens above the thermopile may also limit FOV … lens 126 focuses/directs light onto the sensor portion of the sensor device 100 (e.g., the thermopile membrane 106 and the thermopile 138). The lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident on the sensor device 100 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 41),
wherein the collimator hole is used to obtain the target area light by screening, and block the other area light (e.g., see “… accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor … thermopile 138 utilized in a sensor device 100 can be configured to be exposed to light and/or infrared radiation through an aperture 118 in a light blocking layer 114 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 29),
wherein the infrared sensor is configured to receive infrared light in the target area light, and detect a temperature based on the infrared light (e.g., see “… thermopile 138 and thermocouple(s) 108 can detect infrared radiation and provide a proportional electrical signal for determining an object's temperature …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 29), and
wherein the infrared sensor is disposed in a substrate (e.g., see “… hermetic package 120 can include a structure, such as a substrate (e.g., a bottom side) and/or at least one wall, configured to house the sensor device 100 and/or other components. In implementations, the hermetic package 120 can at least partially define a cavity 140, in which the sensor device 100 can be disposed … As shown in FIG. 1C, the sensor package 102 can include a package lid 122 disposed on and coupled to the hermetic package 120 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 37 and 39).
While Barnett et al. also disclose that other types of sensors may be utilized (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other types of sensors …” such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam. However, “… other types of sensors …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Generally, the infrared temperature-sensitive films come in the bolometer type, the thermopile type, the collector type, etc. … For supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film, such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable …” in the last complete column 16 paragraph of Komatsu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable”, in order for “supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film”) for the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam) as the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Barnett et al. also disclose a calibration sensor and a controller, wherein the calibration sensor is configured to detect an internal temperature of the detector; and the controller is configured to calibrate, based on the internal temperature detected by the calibration sensor, the infrared light temperature detected by the infrared sensor (e.g., see “… sensor package 102 may include other components, such as other channels of thermopiles, thermistors, a reference temperature detector (RTD) 158, and/or an analog-to-digital converter 156 ( an ADC, which may be included in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) including digital functions). Moreover, the controller 142 may transmit data to an external CPU, such as an applications processor and/or a microprocessor. The controller 142, microprocessor, and/or external CPU may be configured to determine a calculated object temperature using raw data received from the sensor device 100 and/or thermopile temperature sensor 102 …” in Fig. 1D and paragraph 53).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Barnett et al. also disclose the substrate and a package cover, wherein the package cover and the substrate are connected in a sealed manner and enclose a space for accommodating an infrared detector (e.g., see “… hermetic package 120 can include a structure, such as a substrate (e.g., a bottom side) and/or at least one wall, configured to house the sensor device 100 and/or other components. In implementations, the hermetic package 120 can at least partially define a cavity 140, in which the sensor device 100 can be disposed … As shown in FIG. 1C, the sensor package 102 can include a package lid 122 disposed on and coupled to the hermetic package 120 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 37 and 39).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, Barnett et al. also disclose that a second light blocking layer is disposed on the package cover, and the collimator hole is provided in the second light blocking layer (e.g., “… sensor device 100 may be coupled to package lid 122 including a light blocking layer 114. In this implementation, the sensor device 100 may be disposed on a side of the package lid 122 exposed to cavity 140. In this implementation, a lid aperture 134 may be formed (e.g., etched) and aligned with the thermopile membrane 106. In some instances, coupling the sensor device 100 to the package lid 122 may be performed on a wafer level and each package subsequently singulated …” in paragraph 43).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 7, Barnett et al. also disclose that the lens is a protrusion structure disposed on the package cover (e.g., see “… as shown in FIG. 1C, a lens 126 can be placed as a part of the package lid 122 and/or within the lid aperture 134. … lens radius of curvature can determine focal length …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 41).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Barnett et al. also disclose a housing configured to isolate heat from an external environment, wherein the collimator hole and the infrared sensor are located in the housing (e.g., see hermetic1 in “… hermetic package 120 can include a structure, such as a substrate (e.g., a bottom side) and/or at least one wall, configured to house the sensor device 100 and/or other components. In implementations, the hermetic package 120 can at least partially define a cavity 140, in which the sensor device 100 can be disposed … As shown in FIG. 1C, the sensor package 102 can include a package lid 122 disposed on and coupled to the hermetic package 120 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 37 and 39).
In regard to claim 11, Barnett et al. disclose a mobile device comprising a detector, wherein the detector comprises a lens, a collimator hole, and an infrared sensor that are arranged on an optical path,
wherein the lens is configured to converge ambient light, and the ambient light comprises target area light and another area light (e.g., see “… portable electronic devices … accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor and either reducing aperture width or increasing the sensor-to-aperture distance. Placing a lens above the thermopile may also limit FOV … lens 126 focuses/directs light onto the sensor portion of the sensor device 100 (e.g., the thermopile membrane 106 and the thermopile 138). The lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident on the sensor device 100 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 41),
wherein the collimator hole is used to obtain the target area light by screening, and block the other area light (e.g., see “… accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor … thermopile 138 utilized in a sensor device 100 can be configured to be exposed to light and/or infrared radiation through an aperture 118 in a light blocking layer 114 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 29),
wherein the infrared sensor is configured to receive infrared light in the target area light, and detect a temperature based on the infrared light (e.g., see “… thermopile 138 and thermocouple(s) 108 can detect infrared radiation and provide a proportional electrical signal for determining an object's temperature …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 29), and
wherein the infrared sensor is disposed in a substrate (e.g., see “… hermetic package 120 can include a structure, such as a substrate (e.g., a bottom side) and/or at least one wall, configured to house the sensor device 100 and/or other components. In implementations, the hermetic package 120 can at least partially define a cavity 140, in which the sensor device 100 can be disposed … As shown in FIG. 1C, the sensor package 102 can include a package lid 122 disposed on and coupled to the hermetic package 120 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 37 and 39).
While Barnett et al. also disclose that other types of sensors may be utilized (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the device of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other types of sensors …” such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam. However, “… other types of sensors …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Generally, the infrared temperature-sensitive films come in the bolometer type, the thermopile type, the collector type, etc. … For supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film, such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable …” in the last complete column 16 paragraph of Komatsu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable”, in order for “supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film”) for the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam) as the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 12, Barnett et al. disclose a portable electronic device comprising a detector, wherein the detector comprises a lens, a collimator hole, and an infrared sensor that are arranged on an optical path,
wherein the lens is configured to converge ambient light, and the ambient light comprises target area light and another area light (e.g., see “… portable electronic devices … accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor and either reducing aperture width or increasing the sensor-to-aperture distance. Placing a lens above the thermopile may also limit FOV … lens 126 focuses/directs light onto the sensor portion of the sensor device 100 (e.g., the thermopile membrane 106 and the thermopile 138). The lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident on the sensor device 100 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 41),
wherein the collimator hole is used to obtain the target area light by screening, and block the other area light (e.g., see “… accurate measurement of the object from a distance may require narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement. The FOV may be narrowed by placing a metal aperture above the sensor … thermopile 138 utilized in a sensor device 100 can be configured to be exposed to light and/or infrared radiation through an aperture 118 in a light blocking layer 114 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 18 and 29),
wherein the infrared sensor is configured to receive infrared light in the target area light, and detect a temperature based on the infrared light (e.g., see “… thermopile 138 and thermocouple(s) 108 can detect infrared radiation and provide a proportional electrical signal for determining an object's temperature …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 29), and
wherein the infrared sensor is disposed in a substrate (e.g., see “… hermetic package 120 can include a structure, such as a substrate (e.g., a bottom side) and/or at least one wall, configured to house the sensor device 100 and/or other components. In implementations, the hermetic package 120 can at least partially define a cavity 140, in which the sensor device 100 can be disposed … As shown in FIG. 1C, the sensor package 102 can include a package lid 122 disposed on and coupled to the hermetic package 120 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraphs 37 and 39).
While Barnett et al. also disclose that other types of sensors may be utilized (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the device of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… other types of sensors …” such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam. However, “… other types of sensors …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Generally, the infrared temperature-sensitive films come in the bolometer type, the thermopile type, the collector type, etc. … For supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film, such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable …” in the last complete column 16 paragraph of Komatsu et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as “such structures as a bridge of the type supported at the opposite ends thereof, a cantilever, and a diaphragm are usable”, in order for “supporting the infrared temperature-sensitive film”) for the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor (e.g., comprising details such as the infrared sensor is fastened to the substrate using a cantilever beam) as the unspecified sensor of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 11, Barnett et al. also disclose a calibration sensor and a controller, wherein the calibration sensor is configured to detect an internal temperature of the detector; and the controller is configured to calibrate, based on the internal temperature detected by the calibration sensor, the infrared light temperature detected by the infrared sensor (e.g., see “… sensor package 102 may include other components, such as other channels of thermopiles, thermistors, a reference temperature detector (RTD) 158, and/or an analog-to-digital converter 156 ( an ADC, which may be included in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) including digital functions). Moreover, the controller 142 may transmit data to an external CPU, such as an applications processor and/or a microprocessor. The controller 142, microprocessor, and/or external CPU may be configured to determine a calculated object temperature using raw data received from the sensor device 100 and/or thermopile temperature sensor 102 …” in Fig. 1D and paragraph 53).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 11, Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 12, Barnett et al. also disclose a calibration sensor and a controller, wherein the calibration sensor is configured to detect an internal temperature of the detector; and the controller is configured to calibrate, based on the internal temperature detected by the calibration sensor, the infrared light temperature detected by the infrared sensor (e.g., see “… sensor package 102 may include other components, such as other channels of thermopiles, thermistors, a reference temperature detector (RTD) 158, and/or an analog-to-digital converter 156 ( an ADC, which may be included in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) including digital functions). Moreover, the controller 142 may transmit data to an external CPU, such as an applications processor and/or a microprocessor. The controller 142, microprocessor, and/or external CPU may be configured to determine a calculated object temperature using raw data received from the sensor device 100 and/or thermopile temperature sensor 102 …” in Fig. 1D and paragraph 53).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 12, Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36).
Claim(s) 2, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. in view of Komatsu et al. as applied to claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Högasten (US 2011/0221599).
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1 in so far as understood, Barnett et al. also disclose (paragraphs 18 and 41) “… portable electronic devices …” comprising “… lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident …” for “… accurate measurement …” “… from a distance …” of the “… Long Wavelength Infra-Red (LWIR) emissions from an object …” by “… reducing aperture width …” for “… narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) …” in order “… to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement …”. It should be noted that 2.44, “Wavelength”, “focal length”, and “lens diameter” multiplied together can be labeled as an Airy disk diameter and “aperture width” can be labeled as collimator hole diameter. The detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… lens diameter …” such as a ratio of the collimator hole diameter to an Airy disk diameter is ≥0.5 and ≤3. However, “… lens diameter …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… FIGS. 2E-F identify diameters of airy discs as a function of wavelength … In FIG. 2F, the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1 …” in Fig. 2E, Fig. 2F, and paragraphs 17 and 89 of Högasten). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as “the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1”, in order to achieve a desired “FOV”) for the unspecified optics of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as a ratio of a diameter of the collimator hole to a diameter of an Airy disk is greater than or equal to 0.5, and less than or equal to 3) as the unspecified optics of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 11 in so far as understood, Barnett et al. also disclose (paragraphs 18 and 41) “… portable electronic devices …” comprising “… lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident …” for “… accurate measurement …” “… from a distance …” of the “… Long Wavelength Infra-Red (LWIR) emissions from an object …” by “… reducing aperture width …” for “… narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) …” in order “… to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement …”. It should be noted that 2.44, “Wavelength”, “focal length”, and “lens diameter” multiplied together can be labeled as an Airy disk diameter and “aperture width” can be labeled as collimator hole diameter. The detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… lens diameter …” such as a ratio of the collimator hole diameter to an Airy disk diameter is ≥0.5 and ≤3. However, “… lens diameter …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… FIGS. 2E-F identify diameters of airy discs as a function of wavelength … In FIG. 2F, the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1 …” in Fig. 2E, Fig. 2F, and paragraphs 17 and 89 of Högasten). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as “the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1”, in order to achieve a desired “FOV”) for the unspecified optics of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as a ratio of a diameter of the collimator hole to a diameter of an Airy disk is greater than or equal to 0.5, and less than or equal to 3) as the unspecified optics of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 12 in so far as understood, Barnett et al. also disclose (paragraphs 18 and 41) “… portable electronic devices …” comprising “… lens radius of curvature can determine focal length and the lens diameter can determine the light power incident …” for “… accurate measurement …” “… from a distance …” of the “… Long Wavelength Infra-Red (LWIR) emissions from an object …” by “… reducing aperture width …” for “… narrowing the field of view (FOV) (e.g., for example to +/-10 degrees) …” in order “… to prevent other nearby objects at different temperatures from affecting the temperature measurement …”. It should be noted that 2.44, “Wavelength”, “focal length”, and “lens diameter” multiplied together can be labeled as an Airy disk diameter and “aperture width” can be labeled as collimator hole diameter. The detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… lens diameter …” such as a ratio of the collimator hole diameter to an Airy disk diameter is ≥0.5 and ≤3. However, “… lens diameter …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… FIGS. 2E-F identify diameters of airy discs as a function of wavelength … In FIG. 2F, the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1 …” in Fig. 2E, Fig. 2F, and paragraphs 17 and 89 of Högasten). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as “the size of the airy disc increases linearly with wavelength (e.g., for optics with F# approximately equal to 1”, in order to achieve a desired “FOV”) for the unspecified optics of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional optics (e.g., comprising details such as a ratio of a diameter of the collimator hole to a diameter of an Airy disk is greater than or equal to 0.5, and less than or equal to 3) as the unspecified optics of Barnett et al.
Claim(s) 5, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. in view of Komatsu et al. as applied to claim(s) 4, 15, and 19 above, and further in view of Geiger (US 2016/0041038).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 4, while Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… sensor combinations …” such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses. However, “… sensor combinations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… lower surface 32 of optics substrate 20, inner side surface 30 of spacer part 14 and top surface 34 of sensor package 16 define an inner area 31 that serves as a channel for incoming radiation … spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material in its entirety or its inner side surface 30 can be coated with a low emissivity material … For the example of a 2-by-2-array, a red, green and blue channel, as well as an IR detection channel can be used … emissivity information can be combined with the collected thermal information to obtain more accurate temperature information. The lens array is not restricted to a square but can also be, for example, 1-by-4, or 2-by-3, or n-by-m lenses, where n and m differ from one another …” in paragraphs 26, 30, and 48 of Geiger). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as “spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material” for each 1-by-2-array, in order “to obtain more accurate temperature information” using “emissivity information”) for the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses) as the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, while Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… sensor combinations …” such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses. However, “… sensor combinations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… lower surface 32 of optics substrate 20, inner side surface 30 of spacer part 14 and top surface 34 of sensor package 16 define an inner area 31 that serves as a channel for incoming radiation … spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material in its entirety or its inner side surface 30 can be coated with a low emissivity material … For the example of a 2-by-2-array, a red, green and blue channel, as well as an IR detection channel can be used … emissivity information can be combined with the collected thermal information to obtain more accurate temperature information. The lens array is not restricted to a square but can also be, for example, 1-by-4, or 2-by-3, or n-by-m lenses, where n and m differ from one another …” in paragraphs 26, 30, and 48 of Geiger). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as “spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material” for each 1-by-2-array, in order “to obtain more accurate temperature information” using “emissivity information”) for the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses) as the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al.
In regard to claim 20 which is dependent on claim 19, while Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors and a plurality of lenses, and wherein the lenses are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… sensor combinations …” such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses. However, “… sensor combinations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… lower surface 32 of optics substrate 20, inner side surface 30 of spacer part 14 and top surface 34 of sensor package 16 define an inner area 31 that serves as a channel for incoming radiation … spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material in its entirety or its inner side surface 30 can be coated with a low emissivity material … For the example of a 2-by-2-array, a red, green and blue channel, as well as an IR detection channel can be used … emissivity information can be combined with the collected thermal information to obtain more accurate temperature information. The lens array is not restricted to a square but can also be, for example, 1-by-4, or 2-by-3, or n-by-m lenses, where n and m differ from one another …” in paragraphs 26, 30, and 48 of Geiger). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as “spacer part 14 can be composed of a low emissivity material” for each 1-by-2-array, in order “to obtain more accurate temperature information” using “emissivity information”) for the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as a light blocking layer for isolating light is disposed between every two adjacent lenses) as the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. in view of Komatsu et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Gidon (US 2012/0268574).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, while Barnett et al. also disclose a plurality of infrared sensors (e.g., “… It is contemplated that other types of sensors or sensor combinations may be utilized in the sensor device 100 and/or the sensor package 102 … at least one thermopile 138 …” in paragraphs 24 and 36), the detector of Barnett et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… sensor combinations …” such as one lens, and a plurality of collimator holes, wherein the collimator holes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors, and a relative distance between a central axis of each collimator hole and a central axis of the corresponding infrared sensor increases as a distance between the central axis of the corresponding infrared sensor and a central axis of the lens increases. However, “… sensor combinations …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… pixels of the imager integrated circuit may be configured to capture images in the infrared region, wherein said device may be a bolometer … for each pixel, the upper diaphragm combined with the lower diaphragm formed facing this pixel form together an aperture directed along an axis and enable the light rays intended to be received by the pixel to be selected … microlenses enabling the refraction to be reduced and light between the metal tracks to be more concentrated … rays intended to be received by two neighbouring pixels pass through a same aperture formed in the layer 116 …” in Fig. 3, Fig, 4, and paragraphs 62 and 97-99 of Gidon). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as “infrared” “rays intended to be received by two neighbouring pixels pass through a same aperture formed in the layer 116” then “or each pixel, the upper diaphragm combined with the lower diaphragm formed facing this pixel form together an aperture directed along an axis”, in order to “enable the light rays intended to be received by the pixel to be selected”) for the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor combination (e.g., comprising details such as one lens, and a plurality of collimator holes, wherein the collimator holes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the infrared sensors, and a relative distance between a central axis of each collimator hole and a central axis of the corresponding infrared sensor increases as a distance between the central axis of the corresponding infrared sensor and a central axis of the lens increases) as the unspecified sensor combination of Barnett et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended and new claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0155914 teaches an IR sensor.
US 2015/0253194 teaches an IR sensor.
US 2016/0149105 teaches an IR sensor.
US 2016/0290870 teaches an IR sensor.
US 2019/0137331 teaches an IR sensor.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 hermetic defined as “Impervious to outside interference or influence”. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Prosecution Insights