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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Invention II (claims 11-16) in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the plurality light filter devices.” This is likely a typographical error. The Office suggests correction to “the plurality of light filter devices.”
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one wavelength of light filtered out the plurality of light filter devices.” This is likely a typographical error. The Office suggests correction to “wherein the at least one wavelength of light filtered out by the plurality of light filter devices.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dielectric material" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This element is likely in reference to “a dielectric material liquid crystal filter” which was introduced in line 2 of claim 12. For examination purposes, the Office will assume that "the dielectric material" is in reference to the “dielectric material liquid crystal filter.”
Claim 12 first introduces a closed group selection using the preface "at least one of.” The second clause of claim 12 then improperly presumes that the dielectric material is the filter that is selected from said closed group. For prosecution on the merits, the Office assumes that the light filter device comprises a dielectric material liquid crystal filter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledebuhr (WO1997042765A1) and further in view of Swenson (US 11624704 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Ledebuhr teaches in Fig. 4: a light filtering system for use in a light sensor carried by an orbital device (“A small satellite imaging system”; abstract), the light filtering system comprising:
a plurality of light filter devices (“a six-color filter wheel 86”; page 7 line 27) to be removably carried (with the provision from Ledebuhr that light sensor comprises the six-color filter wheel (see Fig. 4 and page 7 lines 25-30), this is a genus of only 2 species, (a) the filter wheel is fixedly carried to the light sensor, (b) the filter is removably carried to the light sensor. Thus, because this is a genus with only two species all of them would be at once envisaged by an ordinary skilled artisan1) by the light sensor (“a CCD 88”; page 7 line 27), each of the light filter devices (86) being configured to receive light passed through a lens (“a lens 84 for focus”; page 7 lines 26-27) carried by the light sensor (88) defined as captured light (see Fig. 4); and
a filter selection device (“filter wheel controller 102”; page 8 line 3) configured to carry each of the plurality of light filter devices (“a six-color filter wheel 86 for band selection”; page 7 line 27) and to select one of the plurality of light filtering devices (controller 102 selects/moves the filter wheel 86) to which the captured light is received (see Fig. 4);
wherein the captured light is passed through the selected one of the plurality of light filter devices to filter out at least one wavelength of light from the captured light so that the light having the at least one wavelength of light filtered out is defined as a filtered light (“The six-color filter wheel 86 is equivalent to filter wheel 21”; page 8 line 8 , “The filter wheel 21 uses a six-position filter. The filters 5 are arranged one every 60° of rotation, and the spectral bands of the filter wheel 21 are as shown in Table I, with full-width half maximum (FWHM) nominal band values”; page 12 lines 4-7, see Table 1 which shows the spectral bands of each filter in the wheel).
However, Ledebuhr fails to explicitly teach: at least one wavelength of light filtered out comprises a wavelength of light that is inversely associated with an absorption band of a substance.
In a related invention in the field of narrow-band infrared spectrometers, Swenson teaches: at least one wavelength of light filtered out comprises a wavelength of light that is inversely associated with an absorption band of a substance (“A system can include a narrow-band optical interference filter with a filter bandwidth and a center wavelength that corresponds to a feature in an absorption spectrum of a target gas”; col 1 lines 40-43).
Furthermore, Swenson teaches this configuration such that “the interference filter can be chosen to have a bandwidth and center wavelength optimized with respect to an absorption spectrum feature of a particular target gas” (Swenson, col 1 lines 56-59). Swenson further teaches “transmission measurements collected over a range of incidence angles can be converted into a wavelength spectrum of the atmospheric absorption feature to confirm the presence of a target gas” (Swenson, col 2 lines 14- 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ledebuhr to incorporate the teachings of Swenson to provide a device in which “at least one wavelength of light filtered out comprises a wavelength of light that is inversely associated with an absorption band of a substance,” for the purpose of confirming the presence of a target substance (Swenson, col 2 lines 14- 17 and col 1 lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 13, Ledebuhr and Swenson teach the light filtering system of claim 11. Ledebuhr further teaches in Fig. 4: each of the plurality of light filter devices (“a six-color filter wheel 86”; page 7 line 27) is operable to filter out different wavelengths of light (“The six-color filter wheel 86 is equivalent to filter wheel 21”; page 8 line 8, “The filter wheel 21 uses a six-position filter. The filters 5 are arranged one every 60° of rotation, and the spectral bands of the filter wheel 21 are as shown in Table I, with full-width halfmaximum (FWHM) nominal band values”; page 12 lines 4-7, see Table 1 which shows the spectral bands of each filter in the wheel).
Regarding claim 14, Ledebuhr and Swenson teach the light filtering system of claim 11. Ledebuhr further teaches in Fig. 4: the filter selection device (“filter wheel controller 102”; page 8 line 3) is operable to rotatably move relative to the light sensor (88) to selectively position one of the plurality of light filter devices (“a six-color filter wheel 86 for band selection”; page 7 line 27) to receive the captured light (“The six-color filter wheel 86 is equivalent to filter wheel 21”; page 8 line 8 , “The filter wheel 21 step-and-settle time is preferably less 10 than 250 milliseconds for steps between any two adjacent positions. The mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) of the filter wheel 21 is preferably at least 3,000 hours of continuous operation”; page 12 lines 9-12, the filter wheel controller is responsible for changing the filters between adjacent positions).
Regarding claim 16, Ledebuhr and Swenson teach the light filtering system of claim 11. Ledebuhr further teaches in Fig. 4: the at least one wavelength of light filtered out the plurality of light filter devices (86) includes wavelengths surrounding at least one of 440 to 520 nanometers (nm), 450 to 700 nm, 530 to 610 nm (see Table 1 position 1: 565 ± 25 = 540-590), 610 to 690 nm (see Table 1 position 2: 650 ± 25 = 625-675), and 740 to 900 nm (see Table 1 position 3: 750 ± 25 = 725-775) filter ranges.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the filtering wavelength to be 740 to 900 nm, which overlaps the disclosed range of about 750 ± 25 = 725-775 nm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Geisler 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which found that a thickness of about 100 Angstroms directly teaches the use of a thickness within a claimed range of 50 to 100 Angstroms. See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledebuhr (WO 1997042765 A1) and further in view of Swenson (US 11624704 B2), as in claim 11 and further in view of Hoke (US 6714305 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Ledebuhr and Swenson teach the light filtering system of claim 11. Ledebuhr and Swenson fail to teach: each of the plurality of light filter devices comprises at least one of a dielectric material liquid crystal filter, an acousto-optic tunable filter, a prism, and a diffraction grating system; and wherein the dielectric material includes at least one of a silicon dioxide, a color glass filter, a metal oxide, and a dye.
However, in an alternate invention in the related field of tunable filters, Hoke teaches: each of the plurality of light filter devices comprises at least one of a dielectric material liquid crystal filter (“A nano-dispersion of liquid crystals is disposed in a metal-oxide matrix in the cavity, and means are provided for applying an electric field to the liquid crystals. This invention provides a filter that is polarization insensitive and electronically tunable over a relatively wide refractive index range”; col 3 lines 16-21), an acousto-optic tunable filter, a prism, and a diffraction grating system; and
wherein the dielectric material includes at least one of a silicon dioxide, a color glass filter, a metal oxide, and a dye (“The metal-oxide matrix is preferably formed from titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2), but may also be formed from silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2)”; col 3 lines 33-34, “The liquid crystals are formed or contained in an array of generally spherical cavities formed in the metal-oxide structure”; col 3 lines 37-39).
Furthermore, Hoke teaches this configuration such that “[b]y using a metal oxide for the matrix in which the liquid crystal droplets reside, the attenuation factor is minimized because metal oxides are transparent to the infrared” (Hoke, col 2 lines 49-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ledebuhr and Swenson to incorporate the teachings of Hoke to provide a device in which “each of the plurality of light filter devices comprises at least one of a dielectric material liquid crystal filter, an acousto-optic tunable filter, a prism, and a diffraction grating system; and wherein the dielectric material includes at least one of a silicon dioxide, a color glass filter, a metal oxide, and a dye,” for the purpose of minimizing the attenuation factor because metal oxides are transparent to the infrared (Hoke, col 2 lines 49-53).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ledebuhr (WO 1997042765 A1) and further in view of Swenson (US 11624704 B2), as in claim 11 and further in view of Dekany. R, The Zwicky Transient Facility: Observing system, Published 2020 January 28, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, PASP 132 038001, hereinafter Dekany.
Regarding claim 15, Ledebuhr and Swenson teach the light filtering system of claim 11. Ledebuhr and Swenson fail to teach: a filter library configured to store the plurality light filter devices; wherein the filter selection device is configured to select one of the plurality of light filter devices from the filter library.
However, in an alternate invention in the related field of astronomical imaging systems, Dekany teaches: a filter library (“filter storage closet”; page 17 col 2, Fig. 17) configured to store the plurality light filter devices (“The filter storage closet assembly consists of a chassis with removable panels, latching filter storage bays, and robot access doors, as shown in Fig. 20”; page 19 col 1 header 8.6);
wherein the filter selection device is configured to select one of the plurality of light filter devices from the filter library (“an industrial robotic arm was selected as the mechanism to exchange the full-field spectral filters for ZTF.”; page 17 col 2 para 1).
Furthermore, Dekany teaches this configuration such that “The filter storage closet assembly houses and protects three modular filter cartridge assemblies. Each filter cartridge assembly can be interchanged to allow for various survey-specific filter configurations” (Dekany, Fig. 20 caption).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ledebuhr and Swenson to incorporate the teachings of Dekany to provide a device in which “a filter library configured to store the plurality light filter devices; wherein the filter selection device is configured to select one of the plurality of light filter devices from the filter library,” for the purpose of housing and protecting exchangeable modular filters (Dekany, page 20, Fig. 20 caption).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Prosecution Insights