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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first and second LEDs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willert (DOI 10.1088/0957-0233/21/7/075402) in view of Khalighi (https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.28.004328) and in view of Fan’21 (https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.416121) Regarding Claim 1, Willert discloses a method of determining velocity of particles (Abstract), the method comprising:
driving an LED (Page 2, column 1: “The second part investigates the possible use of LEDs in side-scatter imaging configurations both in air and in water flows.”) with a trigger pulse (Figure 2 caption) to generate a pulse of light from the LED (Figure 2 caption: “Time trace of light emission as detected by a photodiode (upper trace) for a high-power LED (left)”) having an intensity that decays (The intensity of a pulse naturally decays due to capacitances in any circuit, whether they be in the LED circuit or the trigger apparatus.). ;
measuring the intensity of the pulse of light as the intensity decays over time whereby
the measured intensity comprises a correlation between intensity and time (Page 3, column 1: “The response of the LED to a current pulse is provided in figure 2(left), where the lower time trace corresponds to the input TTL pulse while the upper is a measurement of the emitted light as detected by a photodiode.”);
illuminating a moving particle utilizing the pulse of light (Abstract: “light pulses can be generated that are sufficient to illuminate and image micron-sized particles in flow velocimetry.”);
Willert suggests but does not explicitly teach and Khalighi does teach:
capturing an image comprising a streak formed by the moving particle while the
moving particle is illuminated by the pulse of light (Figure 2 shows streaks of illuminated particles illuminated by a coded pulse.; Page 4329, column 1.);
determining a distance traveled by the moving particle utilizing a measured distance
between first and second points on the streak (Page 4331, column 1: “Using the selected coordinate mode the two end points of each streak are obtained and a search area is specified for detecting dots.”; Page 4331, column 2: “Using the selected coordinate mode the two end
points of each streak are obtained and a search area is specified for detecting dots.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khalighi to determine distance based on the end points of a streak into the device of Willert. Khalighi notes in the conclusion that “This special procedure allows individual streaks to be computer identified and velocity vectors
to be determined. The analysis is quite fast and accurate.” Fast and accurate identification of distances and the resulting velocity vectors are highly beneficial to end users of PIV devices as they decrease work time and increase the quality of retrievals.
Willert does not teach and Fan’21 does teach determining a decay in the intensity of the streak between the first and second points (Abstract; Page 642, Column 1: “The pulse interval was optimized for each case according to the bulk velocity, ensuring a 3–5 pixel particle displacement.”);
utilizing the correlation between intensity and time to determine the time to move the
distance (Page 642, column 1; “The pulse interval was optimized for each case according to the bulk velocity, ensuring a 3–5 pixel particle displacement.”) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fan’ to determine the decay time and use that correlation to determine the pulse interval. It is well-known in the art to properly calibrate calculations by measuring the phosphor decay time, and using that information to determine a measurement interval. A skilled worker could have incorporated this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Willert discloses determining a velocity of the moving particle based on a ratio of the distance traveled by the moving particle to the time to move the distance (It is a well-known mathematical relationship to calculate a velocity based on a distance and a time.).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Willert does not teach and Khalighi does teach the streak includes a curved portion; and including:
determining velocity and direction of the particle along the curved portion of the
streak (Page 4331, Column 2: “When a quadratic equation is used, the vector length is defined as the arc length between the two end points.” The quadratic equation can model curvature.; Figs. 2 and 8 both show retrievals along curved sections of a streak.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the further teaching of Khalighi into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan. The ability to model curved flows is very important, as Khalighi notes in Column 1, Page 4328. Many important flows such as those in engines are complex and turbulent, and necessarily involve curved portions.
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Willert does not teach and Khalighi does teach discretizing the streak into a plurality of segments (Page 4330, Column 1 teaches breaking the streaks into segments with dots at each end.” Page 4331, Column 1 teaches extracting the dots from the segments.);
determining the velocity of the particle for each segment utilizing the measured
intensity of the pulse of light (Page 4331, Column 2: “Once all the end dots are found (two dots at one end and one dot at the other end), the parameters associated with the velocity vectors can be calculated.”; Page 4329, Column 2: “The intensities were digitized as positive numbers in two's complement form.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khalighi to discretize the particle streaks into segments prior to ingestion into an algorithm for finding velocities. Khalighi notes in Column 1 of Page 4332 the importance of processing time, and segmentation rather than treating the curves as continuous functions helps keep the processing time lower.
Claims 2-6, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Friedman (US 2001/0040214 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan does not teach and Friedman does teach determining a distance traveled by the moving particle includes determining a three dimensional distance traveled by the moving particle ([0059]: “The processing unit 316 can be any suitable device capable of receiving radiation intensity data from the imaging device and calculating the particle's position and/or velocity in three dimensions and/or size.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to measure a three dimensional distance into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21. Extending measurements to the third dimension offers the user higher quality and more detailed information about the flow system in question.
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Friedman does teach the LED comprises a first LED that emits light having a first characteristic ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.” Thus, the first radiation sheet has a first wavelength.); and including:
driving a second LED with a trigger pulse to generate a pulse of light from the second
LED having an intensity that decays ([0008], [0061]: “Radiation source(s) 302 for generating two different wavelength range radiation sheets can be multiline lasers or gas lamps such as mercury vapour or sodium lamps, or any other source capable of producing radiation sufficiently intense in at least two wavelength ranges.”), wherein the second LED emits light having a second characteristic ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.” Thus, the second radiation sheet has a second wavelength.);
illuminating adjacent first and second volumes with pulses of light from the first and
second LEDs, respectively ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.” If the sheets are offset, then they contain adjacent regions.);
wherein the streak comprises first and second portions formed by illumination of a
particle by pulses of light from the first and second LEDs, respectively ([0006]: “ each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges, of the particles in the illuminated field with known time intervals between the first set of two separate simultaneous images and the second set of two separate simultaneous images.”);
utilizing differences in the first and second characteristics to determine a direction of
movement of the particle ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a device for calculating the particle position and/or velocity in accordance with the measured particle's scattered radiation intensity and the intensity ratio of each filtered image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to have multiple radiation sources into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21, and to duplicate the functionality regarding triggering and decay disclosed in Willert. Multiple radiation sources in optical devices is well-known in the art, and the incorporation of a second LED would have a predictable result. The examiner refers applicant to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), which holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to have radiation sources with two different characteristics producing offset radiation sheets into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan. Friedman notes in [0006] that using two differently colored radiation sheets allows for the use of filtering equipment to generate two simultaneous images, which can result in better retrievals since the two colors then provide distinct snapshots at different times without crosstalk between the two color channels.
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Friedman does teach the first characteristic comprises a first color; the second characteristic comprises a second color ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.”);
the first portion of the streak is a selected one of the first and second colors; the second portion of the streak is the other of the first and second colors ([0006]: “ each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges, of the particles in the illuminated field with known time intervals between the first set of two separate simultaneous images and the second set of two separate simultaneous images.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to have radiation sources with two different characteristics producing offset radiation sheets into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21. Friedman notes in [0006] that using two differently colored radiation sheets which are offset allows for the use of filtering equipment to generate two simultaneous images, which can result in better retrievals since the two colors then provide distinct snapshots at different times without crosstalk between the two color channels.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Willert further discloses seeding a flowstream with particles that are illuminated by pulses of light (Page 6, column 2: “Figure 8 shows a PIV recording imaging a 9.5×7 mm2 portion of a free jet in air seeded with 1–3 μm glycerin droplets.”) from the first and second LEDs (see rejection of claims 2-4 above, the LED pair has already been introduced.).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Friedman does teach the adjacent first and second volumes comprise side-by-side sheets in portions of the flowstream ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution. The particles to be measured pass through the two radiation sheets.” ; [0058]: “The parallel color separated beams have different wavelength ranges.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to have radiation sources with two different characteristics producing offset radiation sheets into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21. Friedman notes in [0006] that using two differently colored radiation sheets which are offset allows for the use of filtering equipment to generate two simultaneous images, which can result in better retrievals since the two colors then provide distinct snapshots at different times without crosstalk between the two color channels.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 3, Willert further discloses wherein the image is captured utilizing a single camera (Figure 10; Page 10, column 2.)
Regarding Claim 19, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Friedman does teach the intensities of the light pulses emitted by the first and second LEDs decays over time ([0008], [0061]: “Radiation source(s) 302 for generating two different wavelength range radiation sheets can be multiline lasers or gas lamps such as mercury vapour or sodium lamps, or any other source capable of producing radiation sufficiently intense in at least two wavelength ranges.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to have multiple radiation sources into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21, and to duplicate the functionality regarding triggering and decay disclosed in Willert. Multiple radiation sources in optical devices is well-known in the art, and the incorporation of a second LED would have a predictable result. The examiner refers applicant to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), which holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Friedman does teach the images are acquired utilizing a pair of cameras that are configured to each view the same scattering angle and field-of-view at a measured location ([0006]: “two separate CCD cameras with filters to provide two sets of two separate simultaneous images, each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Friedman to use two cameras into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21. The incorporation of a second camera into the system would have aa predictable result of producing a second set of images for ingestion into a tracking algorithm. The examiner refers applicant to MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), which holds that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kourmatzis (WO 2025/118025 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan does not teach and Kourmatzis does teach directing a first portion of the pulse of light to a detector to measure the intensity of the pulse of light;
directing a second portion of the pulse of light into a flowfield to illuminate particles
in the flowfield ([0100]: “The value of I0 can be measured over time as IO(t) prior to the initiation of any aerosol, or it can be measured, in real-time, during the aerosol flow through an additional reference photodiode” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kourmatzis to make a second measurement of another portion of the light into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21. Kourmatzis notes in [0100] that this measurement can be used to improve data retrieval by normalizing the actual measurement intensity. It is well-known that such normalizations allow for better comparison of results under different particulate or aerosol loadings.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’21 and further in view of Friedman as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Birouk (US 2014/0334244 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan and further in view of Friedman does not teach and Birouk does teach the flowstream is seeded with particles utilizing a jet nozzle having an axis that is transverse to the side-by-side sheets ([0079]: “However, in the present tests only the central air jet is used. The flow rate along with the exit cross-sectional area of the nozzle (or pipe, see Table 1) is used to determine the exit velocity (i.e. bulk velocity). The selected jet airflow rate…. The laser sheet was located in the symmetry plane of the jet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Birouk to use a jet nozzle with the transverse orientation to seed the flow in to the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan and further in view of Friedman. It is well-known in the art to use jet nozzles to seed a flow with tracers, and the transverse orientation is commonly used to allow for particle tracking. A skilled worker in the art could have implemented this teaching with an expectation of a predictable result, in that the particles could be optimally tracked through the flow.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Fan’22 (DOI 10.1007/s00348-022-03511-9) in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar.
Regarding Claim 12, Friedman discloses a method of measuring velocity and direction of a flowfield ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a device for calculating the particle position and/or velocity”), the method comprising:
seeding the flowfield with particles ([0059]: “The apparatus also includes a device for calculating the particle position and/or velocity”);
illuminating particles in the flowfield utilizing first and second side-by-side sheets of
pulsed light comprising first and second colors of light, respectively ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution. The particles to be measured pass through the two radiation sheets.”; [0061] discloses the use of pulsed light);
wherein the first sheet of pulsed light is formed by a first radiation source that emits a pulse of light, and wherein the intensity of the pulse of light decays to define a first decay profile
comprising light intensity over time ([0061]: “Radiation source(s) 302 for generating two different wavelength range radiation sheets”; Exponential decay of a pulse due to stray and parasitic capacitance is inherent in both the LED circuitry and the driving circuits.);
wherein the second sheet of pulsed light is formed by a second radiation source that emits a pulse of light, and wherein the intensity of the pulse of light decays to define a second decay profile comprising light intensity over time ([0061]: “Radiation source(s) 302 for generating two different wavelength range radiation sheets”; Exponential decay of a pulse due to stray and parasitic capacitance is inherent in both the LED circuitry and the driving circuits.);
capturing images of the illuminated particles utilizing a camera such that the images of
the illuminated particles comprise streaks of the first and second colors ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a measuring device preferably including a CCD camera and filtered image splitter or two separate CCD cameras with filters to provide two sets of two separate simultaneous images, each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges,”),
Friedman does not teach and Fan’22 does teach wherein intensities of the streaks decay along the lengths of streaks (Page 18, Column 1: phosphor emission intensity is decaying exponentially along the trajectory,”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fan’22 to have decaying intensity profiles along the length of the streaks and to measure them. Fan’22 notes in the conclusion that applying a 2D fit to phosphor streaks can be used to extract the motion of the flow, providing a useful tracer in a variety of turbulent conditions.
Friedman does not teach and Kourmatzis does teach measuring the first and second decay profiles utilizing a portion of the pulsed light from the first and second radiation sources ([0100]: “The value of I0 can be measured over time as IO(t) prior to the initiation of any aerosol, or it can be measured, in real-time, during the aerosol flow through an additional reference photodiode” )
utilizing the intensities of the measured first and second decay profiles to determine
velocities and directions of movement of particles along paths corresponding to the streaks ([00105] discloses estimating velocities based on a normalized function.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kourmatzis to make a second measurement of another portion of the light into the device of Willert in view of Khalighi and in view of Fan’22. Kourmatzis notes in [0100] that this measurement can be used to improve data retrieval by normalizing the actual measurement intensity. It is well-known that such normalizations allow for better comparison of results under different particulate or aerosol loadings.
Friedman suggests but does not explicitly teach and Taşar does teach wherein the radiation source is an LED (Page 1, Paragraph 4: “This paper presents a miniature two-color PIV system that uses inexpensive LEDs as a source of illumination and a commercial off-the-shelf digital camera for image acquisition.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Taşar to use LEDs into the device of Friedman. Taşar notes in paragraph three of page one that LEDs can be inexpensive, which provides savings to the end user.
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Friedman in view of Fan’22 and in view of Kourmatzis does not teach and Taşar does teach driving the first and second LEDs utilizing a circuit that outputs a pulse (Figure 2; Page 6: “the LED pulsing circuit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Taşar to have a circuit controlling LED pulses into the device of Friedman in view of Fan’22 and in view of Kourmatzis. A dedicated circuit provides extra functionality like the ability to reliably and repeatably change the pulse width, pulse frequency, and pulse intensity of each LED. This functionality can then be used to optimize the overall operation of the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar as applied to Claim 12, and further in view of Khalighi.
Regarding Claim 13, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar does not teach and Khalighi does teach the lengths of the streaks correspond to distances traveled by particles while illuminated by the pulsed light (Figure 2 shows streaks of illuminated particles illuminated by a coded pulse.; Page 4329, column 1.); and including:
determining distances traveled by particles utilizing lengths of the streaks (Page 4331, column 1: “Using the selected coordinate mode the two end points of each streak are obtained and a search area is specified for detecting dots.”; Page 4331, column 2: “Using the selected coordinate mode the two end
points of each streak are obtained and a search area is specified for detecting dots.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khalighi to determine distance based on the end points of a streak into the device of Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis in view of Taşar. Khalighi notes in the conclusion that “This special procedure allows individual streaks to be computer identified and velocity vectors to be determined. The analysis is quite fast and accurate.” Fast and accurate identification of distances and the resulting velocity vectors are highly beneficial to end users of PIV devices as they decrease work time and increase the quality of retrievals.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar and further in view of Khalighi as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of Willert and further in view of Fan’22.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar and further in view of Khalighi does not teach and Willert does teach the first and second decay profiles comprise a correlation between intensity of the first and second pulses of light, respectively, and time (Page 3, column 1: “The response of the LED to a current pulse is provided in figure 2(left), where the lower time trace corresponds to the input TTL pulse while the upper is a measurement of the emitted light as detected by a photodiode.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Willert to measure a correlation between light intensity and time into the device of Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar and further in view of Khalighi. Kourmatzis notes in [0100] that this measurement can be used to improve data retrieval by normalizing the actual measurement intensity. It is well-known that such normalizations allow for better comparison of results under different particulate or aerosol loadings.
Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar and further in view of Khalighi does not teach and Fan’21 does teach including:
utilizing the decay in light intensity with time (Abstract; Page 642, Column 1: “The pulse interval was optimized for each case according to the bulk velocity, ensuring a 3–5 pixel particle displacement.”) to determine times required for the particles to travel the distances (Page 642, column 1; “The pulse interval was optimized for each case according to the bulk velocity, ensuring a 3–5 pixel particle displacement.”) ;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fan’21 to determine the decay time and use that correlation to determine the pulse interval. It is well-known in the art to properly calibrate calculations by measuring the phosphor decay time, and using that information to determine a measurement interval. A skilled worker could have incorporated this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
determining velocities of the particles based on ratios of the distances to the times
required to travel the distances (It is a well-known mathematical relationship to calculated a velocity based on a distance and a time.).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Friedman in view of Fan’22 in view of Kourmatzis and in view of Taşar and further in view of Khalighi and further in view of Willert and further in view of Fan’21 does not teach and Khalighi does teach forming streak profiles comprising streak intensity vs particle distance (Figure 2 shows streaks of illuminated particles illuminated by a coded pulse.; Page 4329, column 2: “The intensities were digitized as positive numbers in two's complement form.”);
dividing the streak profiles into smaller sub-intervals of time (Page 4330, Column 1 teaches breaking the streaks into segments with dots at each end.” Page 4331, Column 1 teaches extracting the dots from the segments.); and
determining the velocities of particles during the sub-intervals using at least a selected
one of the measured first and second decay profiles (Page 4331, Column 2: “Once all the end dots are found (two dots at one end and one dot at the other end), the parameters associated with the velocity vectors can be calculated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khalighi to discretize the particle streaks into segments prior to ingestion into an algorithm for finding velocities. Khalighi notes in Column 1 of Page 4332 the importance of processing time, and segmentation rather than treating the curves as continuous functions helps keep the processing time lower.
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 12, Friedman further discloses the directions of particles in three dimensions are determined ([0006]: “ thus determining the particle's displacement in three dimensions, then dividing by the time interval between the first and second image sets, thus determining the particle=3 s velocity.”), at least in part, utilizing
changes in colors of streaks corresponding to individual particles that have moved in portions
of both the first and second sheets of pulsed light ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a measuring device preferably including a CCD camera and filtered image splitter or two separate CCD cameras with filters to provide two sets of two separate simultaneous images, each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges, of the particles in the illuminated field with known time intervals between the first set of two separate simultaneous images and the second set of two separate simultaneous images” The particles move through both sheets and images for analysis are capture using filters and a camera.).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Khalighi and in view of Taşar.
Regarding Claim 18, Friedman discloses a method for determining movement of particles ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a device for calculating the particle position and/or velocity”), the method comprising:
utilizing first and second radiation sources to form pulses of light having first and second colors ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.” Thus, the first radiation sheet has a first wavelength.; [0061] discloses the use of pulsed light), respectively, wherein intensities of the pulses of light vary during the pulses (Intensity variation due to stray and parasitic capacitance is inherent in both the LED circuitry and the driving circuits.);
illuminating particles in adjacent first and second volumes of a flowfield with pulsed
light from the first and second radiation sources ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution.” If the sheets are offset, then they contain adjacent regions.), respectively;
utilizing a camera to acquire images of particles in the first and second volumes,
wherein the images comprise streaks ([0006]: “The apparatus also includes a measuring device preferably including a CCD camera and filtered image splitter or two separate CCD cameras with filters to provide two sets of two separate simultaneous images, each of the separate simultaneous images filtered for one of the radiation sheet wavelength ranges, of the particles in the illuminated field with known time intervals between the first set of two separate simultaneous images and the second set of two separate simultaneous images.”);
Friedman does not teach and Khalighi does teach measuring the intensity of light during the pulses to form intensity profiles that correlate light intensity and time (Page 4331, Column 2: “Once all the end dots are found (two dots at one end and one dot at the other end), the parameters associated with the velocity vectors can be calculated.”; Page 4329, Column 2: “The intensities were digitized as positive numbers in two's complement form.” Thus the intensities are recorded along the segmented streaks);
utilizing the intensity profiles to determine directions of movement of the particles;
and (Page 4329, Column 1: “The utilization of this coding pattern introduces two important advantages: (1) flow direction can be determined and (2) since the velocity magnitude is proportional to the streak length and the pulse duration, one can be certain that the extracted streaks are fully within the light sheet.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khalighi to discretize the particle intensity streaks into segments prior to ingestion into an algorithm for finding velocities. Khalighi notes in Column 1 of Page 4332 the importance of processing time, and segmentation rather than treating the curves as continuous functions helps keep the processing time lower.
Friedman discloses utilizing two-color streaks comprising segments having first and second colors ([0006]: “The apparatus includes a radiation source for providing two offset sheets of radiation, each having a different wavelength range and known intensity distribution. The particles to be measured pass through the two radiation sheets.”) to determine if a component of movement along an axis of the camera is positive or negative based on an orientation of the first and second color segments of the two-color streaks [0006]: “thus determining the particle's displacement in three dimensions, then dividing by the time interval between the first and second image sets, thus determining the particle=3 s velocity.” Velocity is a vector quantity, so if velocities in all three directions are determined, then the signs of the velocities are determined as well.).
Friedman suggests but does not explicitly teach but Taşar does teach wherein the radiation sources are LEDs (Page 1, Paragraph 4: “This paper presents a miniature two-color PIV system that uses inexpensive LEDs as a source of illumination and a commercial off-the-shelf digital camera for image acquisition.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights