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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length of the abstract exceeds the limit of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additionally, the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DIRECT CALIBRATION WITH AN ACTUATION ARM” or something similar which is sufficiently descriptive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the phrase “thermal mechanism” which uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
This limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a “Peltier device, [which] may comprise a heatsink, channeled radiators, [and] a thermal transfer plate”, and any equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 10 and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the source” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that “the source” corresponds to “the first source” of claim 9, and the limitation should be corrected to reflect this interpretation.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the power connection” on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a power connection is introduced within claim 10, and not claim 9 from which claim 16 depends. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any power connection will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the device” on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret “the device” as corresponding to the “calibration device” introduced in the earlier claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,048,121 B2 by Andrew J. Zimmerman et al. (herein after “Zimmerman”).
Regarding claim 9, Zimmerman discloses a calibration device for a detector (Zimmerman abstract discloses a calibration device for calibrating a sensor [detector]), comprising:
an actuator (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-12 discloses a mirror positioning mechanism 120 [actuator]);
an arm having a first and second attachment point, and a pivot point (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-27 discloses an arm 122 on which a calibration mirror is mounted; the arm comprises a first and second attachment point (i.e. an attachment point where the mirror is connected and another attachment point where the arm is connected to the two-axis mirror positioning mechanism 120); pivot 124 is shown around which the arm can be actuated);
a module connected to the arm at the first attachment point (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-15 discloses the arm 122 and a housing 130 [a module] – the arm 122 is connected to the housing at a first attachment point; col 6 ll. 63-66 discloses that a mounting platform 140 is part of or coupled to the housing 130 [i.e. mounting platform 140 and corresponding structure are also considered as part of the claimed “module”]);
a controller located within the module (Zimmerman col 6 ll. 44-63 discloses a control system 210 which may be separate from the two-axis mirror positioning system 120 [and since the mirror positioning system is connected to the module, the control system may be within the module]);
a first source attached to the module, having a first source temperature and configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having at least a first wavelength (Zimmerman fig. 2 col. 8 ll. 1-17 disclose at least one calibration source 150a [first source], seen in fig. 2 as being attached to the module [housing], where the calibration source is maintained at a well-defined set temperature [first source temperature]; the radiation beam emitted 312a has well-known spectral properties [i.e. at least a first wavelength which is known]);
a thermal mechanism attached to the module configured to control the first source temperature (Zimmerman fig. 4 and col. 8 ll. 3-17 discloses the calibration system 100 has a thermal management sub-system, comprised of cooling units 172 [thermal mechanism, attached to housing 130] – the cooling unit dissipates heat generated by the calibration source 150a);
wherein the arm is actuated by the actuator (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col. 6 ll. 5-21 discloses the movable arm 122 configured to rotate about a first axis via the mirror positioning mechanism 120 [arm is actuated by the actuator 120]).
Regarding claim 11, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, and further teaches the device wherein the thermal mechanism is configured to emit thermal energy (Zimmerman col. 8 ll. 2-14 discloses that the cooling unit 172 provides a relatively cold thermal interface to the calibration source 150a [by providing a heat sink to dissipate heat away from the source, the cooling unit “emits thermal energy”]).
Regarding claim 12, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, and further teaches the device wherein the module comprises a first surface and a second surface, wherein (i) the first source and the thermal mechanism are connected to the first surface and (ii) the second surface is configured to have a property of at least one of: (a) reflecting ambient electromagnetic energy and/or (b) facilitating radiation of heat away from within the module (Zimmerman fig. 4 shows the cooling unit 172 [thermal mechanism] and calibration source 150a [first source]; col 7 ll. 57-63 and figs. 2 and 4 show a mounting platform 140, where the surface of the mounting platform closest to the mirror 110 is considered the first surface [the first source and thermal mechanism are connected to the first surface]; the second surface is considered as at least one surface within the cooling unit 172 itself which is used to dissipate heat [second surface has a property of facilitating radiation of heat away from within the module], where the cooling interface 170 and cooling units 172 are mounted to or positioned proximate to the calibration source 150a (col 8. ll. 1-17)).
Regarding claim 14, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, and further teaches the device wherein the thermal mechanism is configured to reduce the first source temperature to below ambient temperature (Zimmerman col 8 ll. 2-37 discloses that the cooling mechanism is designed to dissipate heat generated by the calibration source, and that the calibration sources may be maintained at any suitable operating temperature – since the source may be maintained at any suitable operating temperature, the first source is able to be operated at a temperature below ambient temperature; additionally, the source may be operated at a temperature above or below a second calibration source which is defined as having an “ambient black body temperature range” and is therefore cooled to below “ambient temperature” given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, and further teaches the device wherein the arm is further attached to a satellite (Zimmerman col 4 ll. 43-47 discloses that the calibration system of Zimmerman is useful in space-based applications and may be used for on-board calibration of sensors mounted on a spacecraft [equivalent to a satellite] – i.e. the calibration device [and therefore the arm as well] is attached to a satellite).
Regarding claim 16, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, and further teaches the device further including a second source attached to the module, connected to the power connection, and configured to emit electromagnetic energy having at least a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; Zimmerman fig. 4 and col 8 ll. 1-37 disclose a plurality of calibration sources 150a-150c, where either source 150b or 150c here is considered as the second source; examples are given for each source 150b and 150c to emit within a different temperature range [second wavelength different from the first]; one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the requirement for a power connection to both the light source and to the cooling unit associated within Zimmerman in order to function [second source is connected to a power connection, given rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)] examiner also notes that an additional light source 164 is found connected to an integrating sphere which uses the calibration mirror for calibration of sensors in the visible spectrum).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 10, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the calibration device further including a power connection connected to the controller, the source, the actuator, and thermal mechanism, wherein the controller controls the current of the power connection.
However, Zimmerman does suggest this limitation.
Zimmerman suggests the calibration device of claim 9, “further including a power connection connected to the controller, the source, the actuator, and thermal mechanism, wherein the controller controls the current of the power connection” (Examiner takes official notice that within devices capable of facilitating the operation of a controller, a light source, an actuator, and a thermal mechanism for maintaining temperature, a power connection must be present or else the various operation of the named components would not be possible [i.e. an actuator cannot actuate automatically actuate without a power source, “automatically” meaning without manual intervention]; examiner also notes that the means for operation of a power connection revolves around the ability for the current of a power connection to be controlled – having that operation be controlled by a controller would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; examiner also notes that, as indicated in claim 9, a control system 210 is present to control at least the actuator, and therefore a power connection to all the named components would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Zimmerman to suggest a power connection connected to the controller, the source, the actuator, and thermal mechanism, wherein the controller controls the current of the power connection for the advantage of enabling the named components to function as intended [i.e. function at all], and removing the need for manual intervention to operate the components via the controller controlling the current to the power connection [and therefore controlling the operation of the various components].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman in view of US 2020/0401025 A1 by Kan Zhou et al. (herein after “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 13, Zimmerman discloses the calibration device of claim 12. Zimmerman is silent to the calibration device of claim 12, wherein the second surface has the second surface has three-dimensional protrusions which increase the surface area of the second surface.
However, Zhou does address this limitation. Zimmerman and Zhou are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize light sources which require forced head dissipation to keep a light source within an optimal operating range.
Zhou discloses the calibration device of claim 12, “wherein the second surface has the second surface has three-dimensional protrusions which increase the surface area of the second surface” (Zhou generally recites a laser projection apparatus comprising three laser sources, with red, blue, and green emitters; [0053] and fig. 4B shows a heat dissipation fin 701 structure between the blue and green lases, where the fins comprise at least one surface [i.e. the claimed second surface] with three dimensional protrusions which increase the available surface area for heat dissipation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to incorporate wherein the second surface has the second surface has three-dimensional protrusions which increase the surface area of the second surface as suggested by Zhou for the advantage of increasing the utilization rate of the dissipation space within the laser projector by increasing the dissipation area of the laser assembly within a limited space (Zhou [0079]), enabling more efficient cooling.
Claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman in view of US 2022/0094834 A1 by Stephen J. Schiller (herein after “Schiller”).
Regarding claim 17, Zimmerman discloses a method for calibrating a detector (Zimmerman abstract discloses a method for calibrating a sensor), comprising the steps of:
selecting a calibration device including an arm (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-27 discloses an arm 122 on which a calibration mirror is mounted), an actuator (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-12 discloses a mirror positioning mechanism 120 [actuator]), and a module (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-15 discloses the arm 122 and a housing 130 [a module]; col 6 ll. 63-66 discloses that a mounting platform 140 is part of or coupled to the housing 130 [i.e. mounting platform 140 and corresponding structure is considered as the claimed “module”]), wherein the module has at least a first source having a first source temperature (Zimmerman fig. 2 col. 8 ll. 1-17 disclose at least one calibration source 150a [first source], seen in fig. 2 as being attached to the module [housing], where the calibration source is maintained at a well-defined set temperature [first source temperature]); and a thermal mechanism (Zimmerman fig. 4 and col. 8 ll. 3-17 discloses the calibration system 100 has a thermal management sub-system, comprised of cooling units 172 and cooling interface 170 [thermal mechanism] – the cooling units dissipate heat generated by the calibration source 150a);
a detector (Zimmerman fig. 1 shows the calibration system 100 used to calibrate sensor 250 [a detector to be calibrated]);
articulating, with the actuator, the arm and module to a calibration position wherein the first source is in line with the detector (Zimmerman col 8 ll. 62 – col 9 ll. 33 and fig. 2 shows various positions of a calibration mirror 110, which is used to align calibration beams from the light source(s) with a detector, where fig. 4 shows calibration beams 116 which are emitted from the calibration system 100 to the detector 250 [see fig. 1]; the arm 122 and mirror positioning mechanism 120 are adjusted [to a calibration position] so that the first source 150a is optically in line with sensor to be calibrated 250 via calibration beams 116); and
emitting electromagnetic radiation from the first source towards the detector (Zimmerman col 9 ll. 7-17 and fig. 4 discloses the calibration beam 116 the emission of a calibration beam from at least one of the radiation source to the detector 250 [emitting electromagnetic radiation from the first source to the detector, see fig. 1 for 250]).
Zimmerman is silent to a controller, wherein the controller is connected to a power supply, and the power supply is connected to the first source and the thermal mechanism; and informationally connecting the controller to a control device connected to a detector, wherein the detector is connected to a second device.
However, Schiller does address these limitations. Zimmerman and Schiller are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of on-board calibration of sensors using light-based techniques for detectors and sensors deployed on spacecraft and/or satellites.
Schiller discloses “a controller, wherein the controller is connected to a power supply, and the power supply is connected to the first source and the thermal mechanism” (Schiller fig. 1 and [0034]-[0036] disclose a satellite 12, where a satellite has a control system 44 [considered at least a controller within the method]; the calibration system 10 comprises a plurality of computer controlled lamps 40 [light sources connected to the controller]; while not explicitly disclosed, the on-board control system 44 of the satellite must be connected to a power supply of some kind, else the system would not function; while not explicitly disclosed in Zimmerman, those features (light source activation, thermal mechanism w/ active cooling, etc.) must also be powered by a power supply – therefore, the control system 44 of Schiller is able to power the claimed features taught by Zimmerman); and
informationally connecting the controller to a control device connected to a detector, wherein the detector is connected to a second device (Schiller [0036] and fig. 1 disclose the operation of the features of the satellite 12 being controlled by control system 44; the “controller” and “control device connected to a detector” fall within the satellite control system 44, and therefore the “controller” and a “control device” are therefore informationally connected; in the case of Schiller [0036], light sources and/or a sensor array [detector(s)] are being calibrated, and these components of Schiller are calibrated on-board the satellite [detector is connected to a second device, the second device being a satellite]; additionally, Schiller [0016] discloses the capability for processors/controllers to carry out the methods within its specification via executable instructions on non-transitory machine readable storage media).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to incorporate a controller, wherein the controller is connected to a power supply, and the power supply is connected to the first source and the thermal mechanism; and informationally connecting the controller to a control device connected to a detector, wherein the detector is connected to a second device as suggested by Schiller for the advantage of enabling the calibration of light sources and/or detecting sensor arrays on-board the satellite in cases where Earth-based calibration sites are out of view to the satellite due to position, clouds, time of day, etc. (Schiller [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 17. Zimmerman is silent to the method of claim 17, further including the step of attaching the calibration device to the second device.
However, Schiller does address this limitation.
Schiller discloses the method of claim 17 “further including the step of attaching the calibration device to the second device” (Schiller fig. 1 and [0035]-[0037] discloses that the light source and/or sensor array being calibrated are on-board the satellite, and therefore the method of calibration includes attaching the calibration device to the second device [satellite]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to incorporate the step of attaching the calibration device to the second device as suggested by Schiller for the advantage of enabling the calibration of light sources and/or detecting sensor arrays on-board the satellite in cases where Earth-based calibration sites are out of view to the satellite due to position, clouds, time of day, etc. (Schiller [0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 17. Zimmerman is silent to the method of claim 18, further including the step of positioning the device in a stowed position wherein the first source is protected from ambient electromagnetic radiation.
However, Schiller does address this limitation.
Schiller discloses the method of claim 17 “further including the step of positioning the device in a stowed position wherein the first source is protected from ambient electromagnetic radiation” (Schiller [0005] and [0034]-[0035] discloses that light sources 40 are located behind a shutter 36 on the satellite 12, where the shutter 36 is controllable to block light or allow light from the sun, stars, Earth, or other satellites into the system [when the shutter 36 is closed, the device may be considered in a “stowed position” since the system does not allow ambient electromagnetic radiation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to incorporate the step of positioning the device in a stowed position wherein the first source is protected from ambient electromagnetic radiation as suggested by Schiller for the advantage of enabling a calibration of image sensors [detectors] while restricting the external environmental light from entering the system, thereby allowing both dark images to be obtained, and a calibration of the internal light source(s) it/themselves (Schiller [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 20, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 17, and Zimmerman further teaches the method wherein (i) the arm comprises a first attachment point, a second attachment point, and a pivot point (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-27 discloses an arm 122 on which a calibration mirror is mounted; the arm comprises a first and second attachment point (i.e. an attachment point where the mirror is connected and another attachment point where the arm is connected to the two-axis mirror positioning mechanism 120); pivot 124 is shown around which the arm can be actuated); (ii) the first attachment point is connected to the module and the second attachment point connects to the second device (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col 6 ll. 9-15 discloses the arm 122 and a housing 130 [a module] – the arm 122 is connected to the housing at a first attachment point; col 6 ll. 63-66 discloses that a mounting platform 140 is part of or coupled to the housing 130 [i.e. mounting platform 140 and corresponding structure is considered as the claimed “module”]; since the satellite [second device] hosts the on board calibration device, the second attachment point is connected, at least in some way, to the second device), and (iii) the actuator acts on the pivot point to articulate the arm and module (Zimmerman fig. 2 and col. 6 ll. 5-21 discloses the movable arm 122 configured to rotate about a first axis via the mirror positioning mechanism 120 [arm is actuated by the actuator 120]; as with claim 17, the housing 130 of Zimmerman is considered the module – during actuation, the module is “actuated” from the reference frame of the mirror).
Regarding claim 21, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 17, and Zimmerman further teaches the method wherein the second device is a satellite (Zimmerman col 4 ll. 43-47 discloses that the calibration system may be used for on-board calibration of sensors mounted on a spacecraft – in this case, a spacecraft is considered as analogous to a satellite, given the definition of “satellite” of Earth (i.e. an object in orbit); assuming arguendo that the spacecraft cannot be considered a satellite, the method of Schiller recites explicitly the calibration system being on-board a satellite).
Regarding claim 22, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 17, and Zimmerman further teaches the method further including instructing the controller to change the first source temperature with the thermal mechanism (Zimmerman col 8 ll. 1-37 discloses that the cooling units 172 [thermal mechanisms] maintain the first light source at a well-defined set temperatures and the light source can be maintained at any suitable operating temperature (i.e. a suitable temperature set by a user) – the maintenance of a specific temperature by the thermal mechanism is indicative of a controller executing instructions to carry this task out, and the method of Schiller [0016] has been disclosed as carrying out elements of the specification via instructions to a controller [i.e. the controller of Zimmerman in view of Schiller is instructed to change the first source temperature via the thermal mechanism).
Regarding claim 23, Zimmerman when modified by Schiller discloses the method of claim 22, and Zimmerman further teaches the method wherein the first source temperature is altered from ambient temperature (Zimmerman col 8 ll. 2-37 discloses that the cooling mechanism is designed to dissipate heat generated by the calibration source, and that the calibration sources may be maintained at any suitable operating temperature – since the source may be maintained at any suitable operating temperature, the first source is able to be operated at a temperature altered from ambient temperature; additionally, the source may be operated at a temperature above or below a second calibration source which is defined as having an “ambient black body temperature range” and is therefore altered from “ambient temperature” given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language).
Claims 24-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0248470 A1 by Ding-Hsiang Pan et al. (herein after “Pan”) in view of US 7,508,503 B2 by Min-Jun Jang (herein after “Jang”).
Regarding claim 24, Pan discloses a method of calibrating a detector (Pan abstract; device and method for calibrating a wideband instrument [detector]), comprising the steps of: selecting a calibration device (Pan abstract; the wideband instrument is considered as being “selected” since a calibration is being performed on the wideband instrument) including:
(i) at least a first source configured to produce first electromagnetic energy EMR (Pan fig. 1 and [0015] discloses light source 100/1100, which emits light [produces first EMR]; examiner notes that figs. 1 and 2 are used interchangeably within the rejection below – the only difference between figs. 1 and 2 is a diffuser 160 between integrating sphere and measurement instruments),
(ii) a first diffuser connected to the first source and configured to accept the first EMR and provide a first diffused portion of the first EMR (Pan fig. 1 and [0013]-[0015] discloses a smaller integrating sphere 10B/110B [a first diffuser], where the integrating sphere is a hollow sphere where the inner surface is coated with a diffusing material; the light source is within the sphere 10B/110B [first diffuser is configured to accept first EMR]; [0017] light passes from the first sphere via entrance port 30/130 [provides a first diffused portion of the EMR]); and
(iii) a first integrating sphere defining an interior and optically connected to the first diffuser, and configured to accept the first diffused portion from the first diffuser into the interior (Pan fig. 1 and [0013]-[0017] discloses a larger integrating sphere 10A/110A [first integrating sphere], connected to the second integrating sphere 10B via entrance port 30 [connected to first diffuser] and receives light via the entrance port from the second integrating sphere 10B [optically connected to first diffuser to accept first diffused portion from the first diffuser]; as with 10B, 10A is hollow and defines an interior coated with a diffusing material), and defining at least one exit port connected to the first integrating sphere configured to pass at least a portion of electromagnetic energy (Pan fig. 1/fig. 2 and [0014], [0044] discloses an exit port 40/140; [0044] a spectrum of light rays is provided out of the exit port and is sent to detecting instruments and a data processing unit; the portion emitted out of the exit port is considered “at least a portion of electromagnetic energy”);
passing from the first integrating sphere only a second portion of the first diffused portion of the first EMR to the exit port for use by the detector for calibration (Pan fig. 1/fig.2 and [0044] discloses the light rays exiting via the exit port provide a spectrum of the light rays, where that spectrum is received by a narrowband 14 and wideband instrument 13, which measure the spectrum and transmit the data to the processing unit [i.e. for calibration]; [0051] discloses a calibration matrix obtained to calibrate the measured output from the wideband instrument [i.e. used by the detector for calibration]; [0049] discloses that light rays are emitted from the sphere 10A/110A only after running multiple reflections within the sphere – therefore, there exists a portion of light of the first diffused portion of the first EMR which is not exiting via the exit port, such that all light exiting the exit port 40/140 is considered “only a second portion of the first diffused portion”).
Pan is silent to a first source having a first source temperature, and adjusting and maintaining at least the first source temperature while producing the first electromagnetic energy EMR.
However, Jang does address this limitation. Pan and Jan are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems utilizing integrating spheres.
Jang discloses “a first source having a first source temperature, and adjusting and maintaining at least the first source temperature while producing the first electromagnetic energy EMR (Jang fig. 2 col 5 ll. 13-29 discloses a light source 20 [first source] mounted on light source support 50, where a Peltier element 60 adjusts is used to adjust temperature of the light source [first source has a first source temperature] based on a reading taken by temperature sensor 51 (temperature sensor 51 disclosed in col 4 ll. 65-67); a controller 40 is configured to control the temperature of the light source by adjusting a current to the Peltier element 60 [controller adjusts and maintains the first source temperature while the source is producing the first EMR]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to incorporate a first source having a first source temperature, and adjusting and maintaining at least the first source temperature while producing the first electromagnetic energy EMR as suggested by Jang for the advantage of ensuring the light source remains in an acceptable temperature range for an accurate measurement of optical properties according to the temperature of the light source (Jang col 4 ll. 43-45) – as nonuniform temperatures may affect the results of a calibration.
Regarding claim 25, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 24, and Pan further teaches the method wherein the first diffuser is selected to include a second integrating sphere having a second interior surface (Pan fig. 1 and [0013]-[0015] discloses the smaller integrating sphere 10B/110B [first diffuser as with claim 1, comprising a second integrating sphere], where the second integrating sphere is a hollow sphere with an inner surface coated with a diffusing material [second integrating sphere having a second interior surface]).
Regarding claim 29, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 25. Pan is silent to the method of claim 25, wherein the first source temperature is altered from ambient temperature (Jang col 3 ll. 5-14 discloses the forcible cooling of the light source during operation, since the light source is capable of generating a large amount of heat – that generation of heat via operation is an alteration from the ambient temperature if the light source was not operating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to incorporate wherein the first source temperature is altered from ambient temperature as suggested by Jang for the advantage of ensuring the light source remains in an acceptable temperature range for an accurate measurement of optical properties according to the temperature of the light source (Jang col 4 ll. 43-45) – as nonuniform temperatures may affect the results of a calibration.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Jang, and further in view of Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 26, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 25. Pan when modified by Jang is silent to the method of claim 25, further including selecting at least a second source having a second source temperature and configured to produce second electromagnetic energy EMR having a different frequency than the first EMR.
However, Zimmerman does address this limitation. Pan, Jang, and Zimmerman are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems utilizing integrating spheres.
Zimmerman discloses the method of claim 25 “further including selecting at least a second source having a second source temperature and configured to produce second electromagnetic energy EMR having a different frequency than the first EMR” (Zimmerman fig. 4 and col 8 ll. 1-37 disclose a plurality of calibration sources 150a-150c, where either source 150b or 150c here is considered as the second source [and 150a is the first source with a first source temperature]; examples are given for each source 150b and 150c to emit within a different temperature range [second frequency different from the first]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan in view of Jang to incorporate selecting at least a second source having a second source temperature and configured to produce second electromagnetic energy EMR having a different frequency than the first EMR as suggested by Zimmerman for the advantage of enabling a calibration of sensors/detectors with different frequencies so as to calibrate multiple detectors within the sensor 250 simultaneously, thereby reducing total calibration time (Zimmerman col 9 ll. 52-67).
Regarding claim 27, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 25. Pan when modified by Jang is silent to the method of claim 25, wherein the calibration device is configured to survive physically a rocket launch into space and insertion into orbit.
However, Zimmerman does address this limitation.
Zimmerman discloses the method of claim 25, “wherein the calibration device is configured to survive physically a rocket launch into space and insertion into orbit” (Zimmerman col 4 ll. 43-47; calibration system of Zimmerman is useful in space-based applications, i.e. onboard of a spacecraft for calibration of sensors therein; the calibration device therefore must physically survive a rocket launch into space and insertion into orbit in order to be useful for calibrating sensors on a spacecraft or satellite, where unless the spacecraft has a velocity greater than the exit velocity or is entering the atmosphere, the calibration device is inserted into orbit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan in view of Jang to incorporate wherein the calibration device is configured to survive physically a rocket launch into space and insertion into orbit as suggested by Zimmerman for the advantage of ensuring the safety of the components of the calibration device during the usage of the calibration device within a space setting onboard a satellite.
Regarding claim 28, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 25. Pan when modified by Jang is silent to the method of claim 25, wherein the calibration device and the detector are carried by a satellite, and wherein the calibration device is configured to operate in a satellite after insertion into orbit.
However, Zimmerman does address this limitation.
Zimmerman discloses the method of claim 25, “wherein the calibration device and the detector are carried by a satellite, and wherein the calibration device is configured to operate in a satellite after insertion into orbit” (Zimmerman col 4 ll. 43.47; calibration system of Zimmerman is useful in space-based applications onboard a spacecraft [carried by a satellite] for calibration of sensors therein; the spacecraft of Zimmerman is equivalent to a satellite; since the spacecraft must have been inserted into an orbit, therefore the calibration device and detector are configured to operate in a satellite (spacecraft) after insertion into orbit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan in view of Jang to incorporate wherein the calibration device and the detector are carried by a satellite, and wherein the calibration device is configured to operate in a satellite after insertion into orbit as suggested by Zimmerman for the advantage of utilizing the calibration device integrating sphere components in a space-based environment, allowing for sensors on a satellite to be calibrated on-board locally.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Jang, and further in view of US 2013/0003064 A1 by David W. Allen et al. (herein after “Allen”).
Regarding claim 30, Pan when modified by Jang discloses the method of claim 25. Pan when modified by Jang is silent to the method of claim 25 further including a radiometer optically connected to the exit port, and further including utilizing the radiometer to record irradiance emitted from inside the first integrating sphere.
However, Allen does address this limitation. Pan, Jang, and Allen are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems utilizing integrating spheres.
Allen discloses the method of claim 25, “further including a radiometer optically connected to the exit port” (Allen fig 4 shows a radiance meter in optical connection with an integrating sphere system (ISS), directed at an access port, as specified in paragraph [0009]), “and further including utilizing the radiometer to record irradiance emitted from inside the first integrating sphere” (Allen paragraph [0049], in certain embodiments the system comprises a radiance detector for measuring intensity of light within the integrating sphere).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan in view of Jang to incorporate a radiometer optically connected to the exit port, and further including utilizing the radiometer to record irradiance emitted from inside the first integrating sphere as suggested by Allen for the advantage of achieving specified uncertainties within calibration measurements utilizing a radiometer, while enabling the use of a desired light source (broadband or a plurality of wavelengths) (Allen [0033]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 24-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,055,641 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 24-26, all of the limitations of claims 24-26 are taught by claim 1 of the ‘641 patent.
Regarding claim 27, all of the limitations of claim 27 are taught by claim 4 of the ‘641 patent.
While claim 28 recites features similar to the subject matter contained in claim 5 of the ‘641 patent, the current claim recites the presence of both the calibration device and the detector being carried by the satellite and therefore does not result in a nonstatutory double patent rejection.
Claims 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24 and 26 of copending Application No. 18/753,768 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claims 26, all of the limitations of claims 24-26 are taught by claim 24 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 27, all of the limitations of claim 27 is taught by claim 26 of the reference application. Claim 26 of the reference application recites “wherein the calibration device is configured to survive physically a rocket launch into space”; while “insertion into orbit” is unique within instant claim 27 this does not prevent a provisional NSDP rejection, since the rocket launch into space is a type of orbit (regardless of whether the orbit is stable).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 10,386,241 B1 by Bevan D. Staple et al.
US 9,212,968 B1 by David S. Smith et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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 assistce from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877