Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed August 13, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as March 13, 2024, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number March 13, 2024) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as August 13, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
EP
25158216
02/17/2025
EP 4617716 A1
09/17/2025
The claims originally filed August 13, 2024 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the information disclosure statement/IDS filing of August 12, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and outstanding.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, withdrawn, or added.
Claims currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/¶ 2)
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 1 (and by dependency, claims 2-5) and claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted elements are:
any between the processor(s) and the remaining structural elements of the claim.
Preliminary Comments
I. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material”. The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP § 2114(II).
Below, this analysis is referred to as “intended use”. Subject matter in the claims directed to the intended use of a structure is not seen as providing a structural distinction over prior art.
II. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). MPEP §§ 2115, 2143.03.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “workpiece”.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7106447 of Hays (Hays, cited by Applicant).
With respect to claim 1, Hays discloses a system (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a ferrule (optical head 22) comprising:
a first set of optical emitters (second laser beams 18), each of which emits a received optical signal (workpiece) from a ferrule surface;
a second set of optical emitters (reference beam 16), each of which emits a reference optical signal (workpiece) from the ferrule surface; and
at least one wideband optical emitter (resulting in the wide band fringes 114.2, 116.2), which emits at least one wideband optical signal (workpiece) from the ferrule surface;
wherein a processor (not a positively recited element, data processor 112) uses the at least one wideband optical signal to account for variations in at least one of spatial position and angular alignment of the ferrule surface when identifying interference patterns (using the fringe data from the Fabry-Perot interferometer 52) that result from the reflected optical signal and the reference optical signal passing through an interferometer.
With respect to claim 2, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises a single wideband optical signal (workpiece and per claim 1), and
the processor adjusts focal information for the interference patterns based on a single blob pattern derived from the single wideband optical signal (seen as occurring to perform the resulting calculations).
With respect to claim 3, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises two wideband optical signals (workpiece), and
the processor adjusts at least one of focal information for the interference patterns and expected locations of the interference patterns based on two blob patterns derived from the two wideband optical signals (seen as occurring to perform the resulting calculations; workpiece, element not positively recited).
With respect to claim 4, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises three wideband optical signals (workpiece), and
the processor adjusts at least one of focal information for the interference patterns, expected locations of the interference patterns, and attitude information of the ferrule surface based on three blob patterns derived from the three wideband optical signals (seen as occurring to perform the resulting calculations; workpiece, element not positively recited).
With respect to claim 5, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 1, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal (workpiece) is produced by at least one LED (product by process, below) and the at least one wideband optical signal produced by the at least one LED are provided to the at least one wideband optical emitter.
Under MPEP § 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). MPEP § 2113.
Consequently, as the same structure is maintained, claim 5 is anticipated in light of claim 1.
Below, this analysis is referred to as “product-by-process”.
With respect to claim 6, Hays as set forth above discloses a system (Figs. 1-7) comprising:
a ferrule (optical head 22) configured to support a plurality of optical channels (first, second, and wideband-resulting laser/light channels),
wherein the ferrule maintains positions of the plurality of optical channels in relation to one another (per the figures);
wherein each optical channel in the plurality of optical channels is configured to receive an optical signal in a plurality of optical signals (col. 4, ll. 38-41 and adjacent, "Light signals 44 are then collected by each telescope 26 of an array of three telescopes 26.1, 26.2, 26.3 built into the optical head 22.");
wherein the plurality of optical signals comprises a set of narrowband optical signals and a set of wideband optical signals.
With respect to claim 7, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 6, including one wherein
a first set of optical signals in the set of narrowband optical signals is emitted from a vehicle and received as a set of received optical signals that is received by the plurality of optical channels;
wherein a second set of optical signals in the set of narrowband optical signals is a set of reference signals that is received by the plurality of optical channels.
Intended use.
With respect to claim 8, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 6, including one wherein
the plurality of optical channels through the ferrule direct the plurality of optical signals towards an interferometer.
Fig. 1, signals 50 going to Fabry-Perot interferometer 52.
With respect to claim 9, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 8, including one where
an optical sensor receives the plurality of optical signals after passing through the interferometer (col. 6, ll. 45-50 and adjacent, "The signal of any signal channel 88.1, 88.2 or 88.3 received from any one of the three interaction regions 30.1, 30.2, 30.3 is processed through the Fabry-Perot interferometer 52 and associated steering optics that focus the image onto one or more detectors 110, and is compared with the associated signal of the reference channel 86."),
wherein the set of narrowband optical signals are detected as interference patterns and the set of wideband optical signals are detected as blob patterns (intended use).
With respect to claim 10, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 9, wherein one or more processors (data processor 112) are configured to determine information about the interference patterns based on the blob patterns (see as so configured).
With respect to claim 11, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 10, including one wherein
the set of wideband optical signals comprises a single wideband optical signal (workpiece), and
the information determined by the one or more processors comprises focal information about the interference patterns based on a single blob pattern associated with the single wideband optical signal (workpiece, determined information seen as so comprising).
With respect to claim 12, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 10, including one wherein
the set of wideband optical signals comprises two wideband optical signals (workpiece), and
the information determined by the one or more processors comprises at least one of focal information about the interference patterns and expected locations of the interference patterns based on two blob patterns associated with the two wideband optical signals (workpiece, determined information seen as so comprising).
With respect to claim 13, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 10, including one wherein
the set of wideband optical signals comprises three wideband optical signals (workpiece), and
the information determined by the one or more processors comprises at least one of focal information about the interference patterns, expected locations of the interference patterns, and attitude information of the structural support based on three blob patterns associated with the three wideband optical signals (workpiece, determined information seen as so comprising).
With respect to claim 14, Hays as set forth above discloses the system of claim 6, but not one wherein
the set of wideband optical signals are produced by at least one laser emitting diode (LED) (product by process per above) and
the set of wideband optical signals produced by the LED are directed into associated optical channels in the plurality of optical channels of the structural support (workpiece).
With respect to claim 15, Hays as set forth above discloses a method including one comprising:
receiving a set of narrowband optical signals (Fig. 7 signals 114.1, 116.1) from a set of narrowband optical emitters on a ferrule surface (optical head 22);
receiving at least one wideband optical signal (Fig. 7 signals 114.2, 116.2) from at least one wideband optical emitter (resulting in the wide band fringes 114.2, 116.2) on the ferrule surface;
passing the set of narrowband optical signals and the at least one wideband optical signal through an interferometer (Fabry-Perot interferometer 52);
detecting a set of interference patterns associated with the set of narrowband optical signals and at least one blob pattern associated with the at least one wideband optical signal (using multiple light signals/beams produces interference: col. 5, ll. 45-51 and adjacent, "In one embodiment, a single Fabry-Perot etalon 62 is used with four channels of light 76, i.e., a reference channel 86 from the reference beam 16, and three signal channels 88.1, 88.2 and 88.3 from the associated three lens systems 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3 associated with each of three telescopes 26.1, 26.2 and 26.3 having respective three different lines of sight 40.1, 40.2 and 40.3."); and
adjusting for effects of variations in at least one of spatial position and angular alignment of the ferrule surface on the set of interference patterns based on the at least one blob pattern (col. 5, ll. 60-63 and adjacent, "The MOADS 10 provides for comparing each of the three signal channels 88.1, 88.2 and 88.3 with the reference channel 86, so as to provide for an inherent self-calibration of the associated measurements.").
With respect to claim 16, Hays as set forth above discloses the method of claim 15, including one wherein
receiving the set of narrowband optical signals comprises:
transmitting a first set of optical signals in the set of narrowband optical signals (second laser beams 18.1, 18.2, 18.3) into a region outside (three interaction regions 30.1, 30.2, 30.3) a vehicle (aircraft 38);
receiving the first set of optical signals after being reflected from the region (col. 4, ll. 38-41 and adjacent, "Light signals 44 are then collected by each telescope 26 of an array of three telescopes 26.1, 26.2, 26.3 built into the optical head 22."); and
receiving a second set of optical signals (reference beam 16) in the set of narrowband optical signals as a set of reference signals.
With respect to claim 17, Hays as set forth above discloses the method of claim 15, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises a single wideband optical signal, and
adjusting for the effects of the variations further comprises adjusting focal information about the set of interference patterns based on a single blob pattern in the at least one blob pattern (col. 5, ll. 60-63 and adjacent, "The MOADS 10 provides for comparing each of the three signal channels 88.1, 88.2 and 88.3 with the reference channel 86, so as to provide for an inherent self-calibration of the associated measurements.").
With respect to claim 18, Hays as set forth above discloses the method of claim 15, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises two wideband optical signals (Fig. 7: 114.2, 116.2), and
adjusting for the effects of the variations further comprises adjusting at least one of focal information and expected locations of the set of interference patterns based on two blob patterns in the at least one blob pattern (col. 5, ll. 60-63 and adjacent, "The MOADS 10 provides for comparing each of the three signal channels 88.1, 88.2 and 88.3 with the reference channel 86, so as to provide for an inherent self-calibration of the associated measurements.").
With respect to claim 19, Hays as set forth above discloses the method of claim 15, including one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal comprises three wideband optical signals (per the three beams of Fig. 1), and
adjusting for the effects of the variations further comprises adjusting at least one of focal information for the set of interference patterns, expected locations of the set of interference patterns, and attitude information of the ferrule surface based on three blob patterns in the at least one blob pattern (col. 5, ll. 60-63 and adjacent, "The MOADS 10 provides for comparing each of the three signal channels 88.1, 88.2 and 88.3 with the reference channel 86, so as to provide for an inherent self-calibration of the associated measurements.").
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hays as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030151732 of Rogers et al. (Rogers).
With respect to claim 20, Hays as set forth above discloses the method of claim 15, but not one wherein
the at least one wideband optical signal is produced by at least one laser emitting diode (LED).
Rogers discloses a laser Doppler velocimeter that includes:
¶ 85, Fig. 4 provides for a laser diode 106 in conjunction with laser Doppler system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a laser diode along the lines of Rogers in a system according to Hays as set forth above in order to provide stable and uniform illumination for signal generation. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (an air data system) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the at least one wideband optical signal is produced by at least one laser emitting diode (LED).
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20250291132 A1 published September 18, 2025 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to air data systems and related systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights