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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by the applicant and listed below have been considered and are included in the file.
6 September 2024
1 July 2025
14 September 2025
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1500” has been used to designate both a method of operation in reference to Fig. 15 and the sensor in reference to Fig. 16. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“201” which appears in Figs. 4A and 4B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 3, however it includes a limitation which references to “the opening of the omnidirectional reflector”, which does not have antecedent basis within claim 3 but is introduced in claim 4. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-20 of Application No. 18/529692. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/529692 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ja (US 20160033410 A1) in view of Martinsons et al. (hereinafter Martinsons, US 20220074792 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ja teaches a sensor comprising:
an omnidirectional reflector comprising a reflecting side configured to collect one or more incoming beams and to concentrate the collected one or more incoming beams using a curvature of the reflecting side ([0132]; Fig. 1A, reflector (52) may be curved, parabolic, etc. and directs both emitted and collected light to a detector);
a calibration source located inside the omnidirectional reflector and configured to generate one or more calibration beams ([0119] - [0132]; Fig. 1A, where emitter (58) may form beams collected by detector (24) and which may be directed to input port (14) or directed to detector (24), which would act as a calibration or reference signal);
a first filter configured to filter one or more first beams comprising any of a first portion of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams and a first portion of the calibration beams;
and a first detector configured to detect the filtered one or more first beams ([0119] - [0132]; Fig. 1A, where optical filter (54) filters light from emitter (58) and input segment (14) before it is collected by detector (24)).
Ja does not teach that the omnidirectional reflector collects from first and second field of views (FOVs).
Martinsons teaches an optical device which aims to be mounted on or near a ceiling to observe the layer just below the ceiling in a room, wherein an omnidirectional reflector comprising a reflecting side is configured to:
collect one or more incoming beams from a 360-degree first field of view and a 180-degree or less second field of view ([0021], [0046]; Figs. 3, 5 where horizontal view is 360°, and vertical view is
α
, which is comprised between 70° and 90°);
and concentrate the collected one or more incoming beams using a curvature of the reflecting side (Fig. 3, where incoming beams are collected by reflector surface (15) and secondary mirror (12) and directed into the central opening (14) towards detector (2)).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Ja to incorporate the teachings of Martinsons to utilize a detection system with a light which can be used as a calibration source within an omnidirectional reflector which is directed to collect signals from a room with a first FOV and second FOV with a reasonable expectation of success. The reflector/sensor system of Martinsons includes an infrared detector within the primary mirror, but Martinsons goal is to simplify a design. Ja teaches a system which can detect emissions in a compact form which is used in systems such as analyte analysis. To one of ordinary skill, it would be obvious that if one required a detector with a reference signal which also observed a large first FOV, that an optical set-up such as the optical emitter/detector of Ja would incorporate within the omnidirectional reflector of Martinsons with little experimentation, as use of reference/calibration signals in sensors is a known technique for environmental sensing.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ja (US 20160033410 A1) in view of Martinsons et al. (hereinafter Martinsons, US 20220074792 A1) and further in view of Takashima et al. (hereinafter Takashima, US 20180136116 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ja as modified above teaches the sensor of claim 1, but is silent on the use of a beam splitter or a second detector/filter.
Takashima teaches a sensing and inspection apparatus, where a sensor may incorporate a second filter configured to filter one or more second beams comprising any of a second portion of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams and a second portion of the calibration beams;
a second detector configured to detect the filtered one or more second beams;
and a beam splitter configured to:
split the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams to the first and second portions of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams and split the calibration beams to the first and second portion of the calibration beams. ([0144] - [0149]; Figs. 1,18, where beams directed towards sensor (23) may instead be collected by sensor (23'), where a beam splitter (71) separates the light into two paths, where each path has a respective filter (31a, b) and detector (32a, b)),
wherein the beam splitter is any of a micro prism beam splitter, a plate beam splitter, or a dichroic beam splitter ([0144] - [0149]; Fig. 18, where beam-splitter (71) acts as a plate beam-splitter to split incoming signals).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Ja to incorporate the teachings of Takashima to utilize a sensor which incorporates both a plate beam-splitter and a second filter/detector combination with a reasonable expectation of success. As Takashima notes, use of two detectors which both operate at differing wavelength ranges can be useful when a system has multiple wavelengths which are useful in sensing environment or targets, as it allows both sensors to be set based on the dynamic ranges of the specific wavelength ranges ([0149]). Therefore, use of the beam-splitter and two detectors of Takashima in the system of Ja would have a predictable result of being able to separate collected FOV signals in two optimized wavelength range paths.
Regarding claim 4, Ja as modified above teaches the sensor of claim 2, wherein
the omnidirectional reflector comprising an opening configured to pass the one or more calibration beams from the calibration source to the beam splitter (Fig. 1A, where mirror (52) has opening on right-hand side which allows for transmission of beam from emitter (58) and incident light from input segment (14) towards detector (24) and other optics).
Regarding claim 5, Ja as modified above teaches the sensor of claim 3 (4), comprising
a concentrating lens placed at the opening of the omnidirectional reflector, the concentrating lens configured to concentrate the one or more calibration beams on the beam splitter ([0130] - [0132]; Fig. 1A, where lenses such as (50) or (66) are situated at the input segment (14) where incident light enters, or near detector (24), to focus light).
Regarding claim 7, Ja teaches a sensor comprising:
an omnidirectional reflector comprising a reflecting side configured to collect one or more incoming beams and to concentrate the collected one or more incoming beams using a curvature of the reflecting side ([0132]; Fig. 1A, reflector (52) may be curved, parabolic, etc. and directs both emitted and collected light to a detector);
a first calibration source configured to generate one or more calibration beams ([0119] - [0132]; Fig. 1A, where emitter (58) may form beams collected by detector (24) and which may be directed to input port (14) or directed to detector (24), which would act as a calibration or reference signal);
a first filter configured to filter one or more first beams comprising any of the first portion of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams and the one or more first calibration beams;
and a first detector configured to detect the filtered one or more first beams ([0119] - [0132]; Fig. 1A, where optical filter (54) filters light from emitter (58) and input segment (14) before it is collected by detector (24)).
Ja does not teach that the omnidirectional reflector collects from first and second field of views (FOVs), and is silent on the use of a beam splitter, where the first calibration source is located on the first dichroic beamsplitter.
Martinsons teaches an optical device which aims to be mounted on or near a ceiling to observe the layer just below the ceiling in a room, wherein an omnidirectional reflector comprising a reflecting side is configured to:
collect one or more incoming beams from a 360-degree first field of view and a 180-degree or less second field of view ([0021], [0046]; Figs. 3, 5 where horizontal view is 360°, and vertical view is
α
, which is comprised between 70° and 90°);
and concentrate the collected one or more incoming beams using a curvature of the reflecting side (Fig. 3, where incoming beams are collected by reflector surface (15) and secondary mirror (12) and directed into the central opening (14) towards detector (2)).
Takashima teaches a sensing and inspection apparatus, where a sensor may incorporate a first dichroic beam splitter located outside the omnidirectional reflector and configured to split the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams to first and second portions of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams ([0144] - [0149]; Figs. 1,18, where beams directed towards sensor (23) may instead be collected by sensor (23'), where a beam splitter (71) separates the light into two paths, where each path has a respective filter (31a, b) and detector (32a, b) based on wavelength, and dichroic beam splitters are well known variants of beam splitters used when signals require separation by wavelength).
While Ja, Martinsons and Takashima do not teach placing a calibration source on a beam splitter, the location of the source on or adjacent to a beam splitter, but not emitting through the beam splitter, would arguably be a design choice where criticality of the optical component location is not expressed in the instant application. A combination of Ja, Martinsons and Takashima, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been obvious prima facie to teach/incorporate a rearrangement of parts with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) for supporting rationale under Reversal, Duplication, or Rearrangement of Parts).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to modify Ja to incorporate the teachings of Martinsons to utilize a detection system with a light which can be used as a calibration source within an omnidirectional reflector which is directed to collect signals from a room with a first FOV and second FOV, and the teachings of Takashima to utilize a sensor which incorporates a beam-splitter with a reasonable expectation of success. The reflector/sensor system of Martinsons includes an infrared detector within the primary mirror, but Martinsons goal is to simplify a design. Ja teaches a system which can detect emissions in a compact form which is used in systems such as analyte analysis. To one of ordinary skill, it would be obvious that if one required a detector with a reference signal which also observed a large first FOV, that an optical set-up such as the optical emitter/detector of Ja would incorporate within the omnidirectional reflector of Martinsons with little experimentation, as use of reference/calibration signals in sensors is a known technique for environmental sensing. Additionally, as Takashima notes, use of two detectors which both operate at differing wavelength ranges can be useful when a system has multiple wavelengths which are useful in sensing environment or targets, as it allows both sensors to be set based on the dynamic ranges of the specific wavelength ranges ([0149]). Therefore, use of the beam-splitter in the system of Ja would have a predictable result of being able to separate collected FOV signals in two optimized wavelength range paths.
Ja as modified by Martinsons and Takashima would similarly teach a system with the beam splitter located inside the omnidirectional reflector (as discussed in claim 1), and both Ja and Martinsons teach several embodiments which use a variety of other reflectors, which to one of ordinary skill in the art would teach using a folding reflector (such as the secondary mirror (12) of Martinsons, Fig. 3) as it is a simple substitution of two elements with predictable results. Therefore, claim 13 is similarly rejected to claim 7.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ja (US 20160033410 A1) in view of Martinsons et al. (hereinafter Martinsons, US 20220074792 A1) and further in view of Hipolyte et al. (hereinafter Hipolyte, US 20150187194 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ja as modified above teaches the sensor of claim 1, but does not teach that the calibration beams comprise a characteristic such as intensity or bandwidth.
Hipolyte teaches a hazard detection device which may be formatted to include reference signal information, where the one or more calibration beams comprise characteristics of an incoming beam of interest, the characteristics comprising any of bandwidth, amplitude, intensity, power, energy ([0074], where reference signals/voltages can be related to obscuration measurements such as intensity or power of incoming light).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Ja to incorporate the teachings of Hipolyte to set a reference beam to have a value which relates to incoming signal characteristics with a reasonable expectation of success. As Hipolyte notes, this is necessary for a calibration of the system to different obscuration measurements ([0074]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that one use of a reference, or calibration signal, is that it is set to a known value which incoming signals can be compared to and use of a signal like this in the system of Ja would allow the system to determine if an external signal is comparable to a baseline value, and therefore a warning signal should not be initiated.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ja (US 20160033410 A1) in view of Martinsons et al. (hereinafter Martinsons, US 20220074792 A1) and Takashima et al. (hereinafter Takashima, US 20180136116 A1), and further in view of Hipolyte et al. (hereinafter Hipolyte, US 20150187194 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ja as modified above teaches the sensor of claim 7, comprising:
a processing circuitry electronically coupled to the first detector, the processing circuitry configured to process the detected filtered one or more first beams;
and a memory, electronically coupled to the processing circuitry, the memory configured to store a firmware comprising instructions for the processing circuitry to process the detected filtered one or more first beams ([0250] - [0253]; Fig. 27, where detection module provides spectral and/or spatial information to controller (2750) and the controller may be implemented as any appropriate processing device and other components such as external memory devices may be used to execute appropriate instructions).
Ja does not teach where one or more incoming signals include data for updating firmware of the system.
Hipolyte teaches a hazard detection device which may be formatted to include reference signal information, wherein the first detector is configured to detect one or more incoming optical communications beams collected by the omnidirectional reflector from the first and second fields of view, wherein the one or more incoming optical communications beams comprise data for updating the firmware ([0047]).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious prima facie to further modify Ja to incorporate the teachings of Hipolyte to collect incoming signals which may include information for updating firmware of a device with a reasonable expectation of success. As Hipolyte notes, this is necessary for the continued functionality of a system which detects things like smoke in an environment and which may need to be calibrated or updated from external sources ([0097] – [0102]).
Claim 20 is similarly rejected to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, for Statutory Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claims 8 and 14 include limitations which are not explicitly taught by the applicable prior art of record or prior art found during search. The closest applicable art of record Ja (US 20160033410 A1) in view of Martinsons et al. (hereinafter Martinsons, US 20220074792 A1) and further in view of Takashima et al. (hereinafter Takashima, US 20180136116 A1) teach a sensor as described in claim 7 (13). Further, the teachings of Takashima can be utilized to teach an obvious combination with a second calibration source and a beam splitter in the path of the second portion of the collected and concentrated one or more incoming beams, which additionally splits other beams such as the one or more second calibration beams to a first and second portion.
However, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious a second calibration source located on the first dichroic beam splitter on an opposite side of the first calibration source. While a rearrangement of parts teaches the location of a single calibration source being adjacent to, or on, a beam splitter, it is not obvious to place two calibration sources on opposite sides of a beam splitter where the beams do not pass through the beam splitter they are attached to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bjorøy (US 20180172580 A1) teaches a gas monitor which comprises a retroreflector, and multiple emitters, detectors, and filters which may be incorporated into signal collection and/or reference signal pathways.
Bao et al. (US 20180188355 A1) teaches a co-axial scanning LIDAR, which utilizes multiple detectors, and a concave reflector for collection of signals from a first FOV and a second FOV with a variety of optical components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kara Richter whose telephone number is (571)272-2763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8A-5P EST, Fridays are variable.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/K.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights