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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
(1) first and second portions having substantially equal sizes, and the boundary, of claim 4;
(2) first and second portions having substantially different sizes, and the boundary, of claim 7;
must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
If Applicant believes that these features already appear in the drawings, Applicant is required to label the features in the drawings and to amend the specification to include the labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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, 2, 4-6, 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2540737 by Strickland as listed in the IDS dated 12/20/2023 (“Strickland”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,656,109 issued to Scarborough, III et al. (“Scarborough”).
As for claim 1, Strickland discloses a wind measurement apparatus (Figs. 4, 7 and 8) comprising:
a base portion (12) and a cover portion (26) arranged at a distance from each other to allow for an airflow therebetween (see Fig. 7);
an arrangement of N transducers (50, 52, 54) disposed on a cover-portion-facing side of the base portion in respective positions that serve as respective vertices of a convex regular polygon of order N, where N is at least three (see Fig. 8); and
a reflector assembly (26) arranged on a base-portion-facing side of the cover portion (see Fig. 7),
wherein the reflector assembly (26) and the base portion (12) are disposed with respect to each other such that a center point (at 28) of the reflector assembly is spatially aligned with a center point (at 28) of said convex regular polygon (see Figs. 7 and 8) and that each of the N transducers (50, 52, 54) is spatially aligned with a respective boundary (a line connecting the transducer and 28) between two adjacent reflector portions (spaces on 26 and “above” 12 at the midpoint between adjacent transducers; see Figs. 7 and 8),
wherein each transducer (50, 52, 54) is arranged to:
transmit a respective ultrasonic measurement signal in a respective transmitter beam, TX beam, towards the reflector assembly (26) such that the respective TX beam (having two lobes; paragraph [0046]) meets the two adjacent reflector portions on opposite sides of the respective boundary with which the respective transducer is spatially aligned (paragraphs [0036] and [0046] and Fig. 8), and
receive, via said two adjacent reflector portions, respective partial reflections of the respective TX beams originating from those ones of the N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer (paragraphs [0036] and [0046]), and
wherein the apparatus further comprises a control portion (30) arranged to:
operate each transducer to transmit the respective ultrasonic measurement signal in the respective TX beam and to capture the respective ultrasonic measurement signals received in the respective partial reflections of the respective TX beams transmitted from those ones of the N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer (paragraphs [0040] and [0041]), and
derive one or more wind characteristic based on respective propagation delays of the respective ultrasonic measurement signals transmitted from the N transducers and captured at those ones of the N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer (paragraph [0041]).
Strickland does not disclose that the reflector portion is divided into N substantially identical concave reflector portions as recited and that the transmitter beam is divergent.
However, Scarborough discloses a reflector assembly (500) that is divided into N (where N equals the number of transducer pairs; see Fig. 4B) substantially identical concave reflector portions (502, 503), that are provided as respective recesses on a base-portion-facing surface of a cover portion (500) and that a transmitter beam is divergent (see Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the reflector assembly and transmitter beam of Strickland to have N substantially identical concave reflector portions as disclosed by Scarborough and to modify the transmitter beam of Strickland to be divergent as disclosed by Scarborough in order to improve amplitude and reduce signal loss from each transducer by the other transducer of the transducer pair (Scarborough: col. 2, lines 38-44).
As for claim 2, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that each concave reflector portion (Scarborough: 502, 503) is arranged to focus a portion of the respective TX beam originating from a first transducer (for example, Strickland: 50 and Scarborough: 120-1 in Fig. 6) of the N transducers to a second transducer (for example, Strickland: 52 and Scarborough: 120-2 in Fig. 6) of the N transducers and focus a portion of the respective TX beam originating from the second transducer to the first transducer (Scarborough: col. 5, lines 44-51 and col. 6, lines 23-27), where the first transducer is spatially aligned with a first boundary (Scarborough: an edge of 502 that is close to 120-1 in Fig. 6) of the respective reflector portion and the second transducer is spatially aligned with a second boundary (Scarborough: and edge of 502 that is close to 120-2 in Fig. 6) of the respective reflector portion.
As for claim 4, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that each transducer (Strickland: 50, 52, 54) is arranged to transmit the respective TX beam (Strickland: the two-lobed beam; paragraph [0046]) having its center axis (Strickland: the portion between the two lobes) directed towards a respective target position on the boundary between said two adjacent reflector portions so as to split the respective TX beam at least into a first portion (Strickland: the first lobe) that meets a surface of a first reflector portion on one side of said boundary and a second portion (Strickland: the second lobe) that meets a surface of a second reflector portion on the opposite side of said boundary, where the first and second portions have substantially equal sizes, thereby facilitating power transfer between said two transducers (Strickland: paragraph [0046]).
As for claim 5, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that each concave reflector portion (Scarborough: 502, 503) comprises a concave reflector surface arranged with respect to the respective two transducers that are spatially aligned with the respective boundaries of the respective reflector portion such that a reference axis meets the reflector surface at a normal angle (Scarborough: see Fig. 6), where said reference axis is substantially perpendicular to a plane defined by respective locations of the N transducers (Scarborough: see Fig. 6) and the reference axis intersects a conceptual line connecting said two transducers at a position that is substantially at an equal distance from respective positions of said two transducers (Scarborough: see Fig. 6), thereby facilitating power transfer between said two transducers.
As for claim 6, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that each concave reflector portion (Scarborough: 502, 503) comprises a concave reflector surface defined as a concave cap of an underlying concave surface that is separated therefrom by a surface normal of its center axis (Scarborough: see Fig. 6), wherein the underlying concave surface comprises one of the following:
an ellipsoid (Scarborough: col. 5, lines 25-29),
a sphere (Scarborough: col. 5, lines 25-29),
a paraboloid.
As for claim 8, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that each concave reflector portion (Scarborough: 502, 503) comprises a concave reflector surface having a shape arranged to facilitate power transfer in the respective TX beams transmitted from the N transducers for reception after a first refection from the reflector assembly (Scarborough: see Fig. 6) while limiting power transfer in reflections of TX beams from respective front faces of the N transducers after the first reflection from the reflector assembly (Scarborough: see Fig. 6).
As for claim 11, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that the N substantially identical concave reflector portions form a contiguous reflector area for the reflector assembly (Scarborough: see Fig. 5A), thereby forming a respective ridge at each boundary between two adjacent reflector portions (Scarborough: see Fig. 5A).
As for claim 12, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that the reflector portion (Strickland: 26) further comprises a beam suppression portion (Scarborough: portions of 500 between 502 and 503 in Fig. 5A) that includes N sections that each extend from the center point of the reflector assembly towards a perimeter of the reflector assembly (Strickland: corresponding to the areas between the lobes in paragraph [0046]) such that they form a respective boundary area between each pair of adjacent reflector portions that are arranged to steer TX beam portions directed thereat off the N transducers.
As for claim 13, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that said boundary areas are provided as respective substantially planar surfaces (Scarborough: see Figs. 5A and 5C).
As for claim 14, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that the control portion (Strickland: 30) is arranged to:
operate each transducer to further capture respective reflected measurement signals that are reflected from respective front faces of those ones of the N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer (Strickland: paragraphs [0040] and [0041]); and
derive the one or more wind characteristics further based on respective propagation times of the respective measurement signals transmitted from the N transducers and captured at respective other ones of the N transducers after reflections from respective front faces of those ones of the N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer (paragraph [0041]).
As for claim 15, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses that N is three (Strickland: see Figs. 7 and 8), and that the arrangement of N transducers (Strickland: 50, 52, 54) disposed on the cover-portion-facing side of the base portion in respective positions that serve as respective vertices of a convex regular polygon of order N, comprises an arrangement of three transducers (Strickland: 50, 52, 54) disposed on the cover-portion-facing side of the base portion in respective positions that serve as respective vertices of a regular equilateral triangle (Strickland: see Fig. 8); and
that the reflector assembly (Strickland: 26) is divided into three substantially identical concave reflector portions (Strickland: see Fig. 8 and Scarborough: see Fig. 5A) that are provided as respective recesses on the base-portion-facing surface of the cover portion(Scarborough: see Fig. 5A), the reflector assembly thereby exhibiting trilateral rotational symmetry (to match Fig. 8 of Strickland).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2540737 by Strickland as listed in the IDS dated 12/20/2023 (“Strickland”) in view of U.S. Patent 11,656,109 issued to Scarborough, III et al. (“Scarborough”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN 114088973 by Shi et al. (“Shi”).
As for claim 3, Strickland as modified by Scarborough discloses the wind measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Strickland as modified by Scarborough does not disclose that each of the N transducers comprises a respective piezoelectric transducer. Instead, Strickland discloses generic transducers that create ultrasonic waves to determine a wind speed (Abstract).
However, Shi discloses that each of N transducers (6) comprises a respective piezoelectric transducer (see the paragraph beginning “the position relation of the ultrasonic transducer group 6 and the upper reflecting plate 14 …”). Shi discloses that the piezoelectric transducers create ultrasonic waves to determine a wind speed (Abstract).
Because Strickland and Shi both disclose transducers that create ultrasonic waves to determine a wind speed, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the piezoelectric transducers of Shi for the generic transducers of Strickland to achieve the predictable result of providing transducers that create ultrasonic waves to determine a wind speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest that each transducer is arranged transmit a respective TX beam having its center axis directed towards a predefined target position that is offset from a boundary between said two adjacent reflector portions so as to split the respective TX beam at least into a first portion that meets a surface of a first reflector portion on one side of said boundary and a second portion that meets a surface of a second reflector portion on the opposite side of said boundary, where the first and second portions have substantially different sizes, thereby limiting power transfer in reflections of TX beams from respective front faces of those ones of N transducers that are adjacent to the respective transducer.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record and the examiner’s knowledge does not disclose or suggest that each concave reflector portion comprises a concave reflector surface arranged with respect to respective two transducers that are spatially aligned with respective boundaries of a respective reflector portion such that a reference axis meets the reflector surface at a non-normal angle, where said reference axis is substantially perpendicular to a plane defined by respective locations of N transducers and the reference axis intersects a conceptual line connecting said two transducers at a position that is substantially at an equal distance from respective positions of said two transducers, thereby limiting power transfer in reflections of TX beams from respective front faces of said two transducers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Strickland does not disclose physical boundaries or ridges between adjacent concave recesses. However, the examiner notes that Applicant is arguing against Strickland in isolation. Furthermore, the examiner notes that Applicant is describing structures that are not recited in the claims. On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant suggests that one having ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Scarborough with those of Strickland. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that both Strickland and Scarborough are directed toward the use of reflected ultrasonic beams; therefore the improved beam emission and reflection characteristics pf Scarborough would be relevant to the beam emission and reflection of Strickland.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights