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
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh (US 20200257001 A1) in view of Pohl (US 20130128261 A1).
Claim 1: Huynh teaches an aircraft system for determining metrics of a cloud atmosphere, the aircraft system comprising:
an invisible light generator configured to generate light invisible to the human eye ([0030] - each light generator can be visible or invisible);
a visible light generator configured to generate light visible to the human eye ([0030] - each light generator can be visible or invisible);
[…]
a detector configured to detect a reflected portion of the light invisible to the human eye reflected by a cloud atmosphere (Fig. 5, sensors 42a, 42b);
and a cloud metric calculator configured to determine cloud metrics of the cloud atmosphere based on a reflected portion detected ([0031]).
Huynh does not teach, but Pohl does teach
a dichroic combiner aligned with each of the visible and invisible light generators to receive and combine the light invisible to the human eye and the light visible to the human eye into a combined beam (Fig. 4, optical combiner 450);
an optical projector configured to receive the combined beam and to project the combined beam from an aircraft into an atmosphere external to the aircraft (Fig. 4, beam targeting optics 430),
the light invisible to the human eye projected into a first projection field of view that is wholly within and surrounded by a second projection field in which the light visible to the human eye is projected (Fig. 4, beam 142 inside beam 140 and [0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the beam combiner, as taught by Pohl, this enhances eye safety by getting a person to look away (Pohl [0014] – adjusting visible light to elicit response).
Claim 2: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising: a light controller configured to control operation of the visible light generator ([0043]).
Claim 4: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 2, wherein the light generator is configured to control color of the visible light to indicate a hazard level of the light invisible to the human eye generated by the first light generator (Pohl [0014]).
Claim 5: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 4, wherein the light controller is configured to cause the visible light generator to generate light that is visible to the human eye that is green, yellow, or red, based on a corresponding increasing level of radiance of the light invisible to the human eye generated by the invisible light generator ([0030] - infrared vs visible).
Claim 6: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 2, wherein the light controller is further configured to control operation of the invisible light controller ([0043]).
Claim 7: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 6, wherein the light controller is configured to temporally control operation of both the invisible and visible light generators such that when the invisible light generator is generating light invisible to the human eye, the visible light generator is also generating light visible to the human eye (Pohl [0014]).
Claim 8: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, wherein the light controller is configured to cause the invisible light generator to generate pulses of light invisible to the human eye ([0043] - generating light signals).
Claim 9: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the cloud metric calculator is configured to determine cloud metrics of the cloud atmosphere based on pulse metrics of the backscattered portion of the pulses of light invisible to the human eye backscattered by the cloud atmosphere ([0024]).
Claim 10: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the first projection field of view is characterized by a first angle of divergence and the second projection field of view is characterized by a second angle of divergence, wherein the first angle of divergence is less than the second angle of divergence (Pohl [0014] – invisible light inside visible light means different angles of divergence).
Claim 14: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 1. Huynh, as modified, does not teach wherein the dichroic combiner is configured to transmit the light invisible to the human eye therethrough and to reflect the light visible to the human eye.
However, Pohl does teach the combiner (Fig. 4, combiner 450) reflecting the invisible light (142) and transmitting the visible light (140).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flip the orientation of the combiner so the invisible light is transmitted and visible light is reflected as this is simply a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04.VI).
Claim 16: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the invisible light generator includes an infrared laser ([0030]).
Claim 17: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 1. Huynh, as modified, does not teach, but Pohl does teach, wherein the visible light generator includes a Light Emitting Diode (LED) ([0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LED, as taught by Pohl, as the visible light generator in the system as taught by Huynh, as modified, because LEDs are well known in the art to yield predictable results.
Claim 18: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising: a lens located between the visible light generator and the dichroic combiner, the lens configured to shape the light visible to the human eye so that the light visible to the human eye diverges with an equal or greater than equal angle of divergence than the light invisible to the human eye as generated by the invisible light generator (Pohl Fig. 4 and [0014]).
Claim 19: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein an intersection of the invisible beam of light with the visible beam of light is coextensive with the invisible beam of light (Pohl Fig. 4 – invisible light inside visible light).
Claim 20: Claim 20 is a method corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh (US 20200257001 A1) in view of Pohl (US 20130128261 A1), further in view of Bateman (US 8077081 B2).
Claim 3: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 2. Huynh, as modified, does not teach, but Bateman does teach, wherein the light controller is configured to turn off the invisible light generator in response to a weight-on-wheel signal indicating no weight on a landing gear of the aircraft (Col 9, lines 38-50 – using a weight-on-wheels signal to control weather radar).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the weight-on-wheels signal, as taught by Bateman, in the system as taught by Huynh, as modified, because this would save power by only turning the sensor on when it is needed.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh (US 20200257001 A1) in view of Pohl (US 20130128261 A1), further in view of Russel (US 20190107606 A1).
Claim 11: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 10. Huynh, as modified, does not teach wherein a ratio of the first angle of divergence to the second angle of divergence is less than 0.9.
However, Russel teaches a beam with a divergence of 0.5 to 10 mrad ([0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the range, as taught by Russel, to combine different beam divergences to achieve the claimed ratio, as this would yield predictable results.
Claim 12: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 10. Huynh, as modified, does not teach, but Russel does teach, wherein the first angle of divergence is less than 4 mrad ([0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the range as taught by Russel in the system as taught by Huynh, as modified, as different beam divergences would have predictable results. Further, this is simply an overlapping range (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 13: Huynh, as modified, teaches the aircraft system of Claim 12. Huynh, as modified, does not teach, but Russel does teach, wherein the second angle of divergence is between 8 and 15 mrad ([0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the range as taught by Russel in the system as taught by Huynh, as modified, as different beam divergences would have predictable results. Further, this is simply an overlapping range (See MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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: The specific radiance of the visible light at a distance where the invisible light is eye-safe was not found in prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights