DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 31 are pending in the present application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “The method of using the apparatus of claim 27” is a minor antecedent basis issue and should read “A method of using the apparatus of claim 27” or the like.
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.
Claims 19, 24 and 29 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.
The term “located at or near a focal point” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification (see instant publication at [0049]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear how much variation from a focal point the location must be.
As best understood for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term “near” will be considered as at or in the cavity / aperture.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends by the term “near” is required.
The term “Bismuth Telluride or other high ZT material” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification (see instant publication at [0066]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear how what the bounds regarding a “high” ZT material are.
As best understood for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term “high ZT material” will be considered as any material which known for use in thermocouples.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends by the term “high” ZT material is required.
The term “an ultra-low weight spectrograph” in claim 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultra-low weight” is not defined by the claim, the specification (see instant publication at [0063-64] regarding “lightweight spectrometers” and “Ultralight imaging platforms” respectively but providing no concrete definitions) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is unclear what weight or weight range an “ultra-low weight” is.
As best understood for purpose of examination and to expedite prosecution the term “ultra-low weight” will be considered as any micro, nano or otherwise small/miniature device.
However, positive in claim recitation of the metes and bounds applicant intends by the term “ultra-low weight” is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 18-25, 27-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setlak (US 20060062439) in view of Cox et al. (US 20120199743; hereinafter Cox).
Regarding claim 1, Setlak teaches an apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a first antenna (at least one of “bowtie dipole antenna 106” [0042]; see fig. 5; see [0042-43] and [0048]) suspended over a cavity at a first position (see figs. 5 and 6 showing this first antenna 106 of antennas 106 suspended over cavity / aperture at a first position; referenced as circular aperture 125 in figs. 10 and 11);
a first thermocouple connected to the first antenna (at least the thermocouple 114 connected to the first antenna 106 by respective via 112; see fig. 6; [0044] and [0048]), wherein the first thermocouple supports the first antenna over the cavity (see figs. 5-6 and 10-11 showing this supported configuration over aperture 125 by the thermocouple(s) and via(s) 112) and extends to a first location on an edge of the cavity (see [0043-44] and [0046-47]; see figs. 5-8 showing examples of such extension to edge of cavity for support; see also figs. 10 and 11);
a second antenna (at least a second of “bowtie dipole antenna 106” [0042]; see fig. 5; see [0042-43] and [0048]) suspended over the cavity at a second position different from the first position (see fig. 5 showing the plural antennas of IR sensing units 109 suspended over the cavity 125 including a second antenna at a position different from that of the first antenna; see also fig. 6); and
a second thermocouple connected to the second antenna (at least the thermocouple 114 connected to the second antenna 106 by respective via 112; see fig. 6; [0044] and [0048]), wherein the second thermocouple supports the second antenna over the cavity (see fig. 6 showing this supported configuration) and extends to a second location on the edge of the cavity different than the first location (see [0043-44] and [0046-47]; see fig. 5 in view of fig. 6 showing that the first and second locations on the edge of the cavity are different; see also figs. 5-8 showing examples of such extension to edge of cavity for support).
Setlak does not directly state that the extension from the first and second antennas is fully by the thermocouples (teaching that the full extension is by the hot junction portion of the thermocouple structures -114- and by vias -112- which are only arguably part of the totality of the thermocouple structure).
Regardless, Cox teaches direct and specific full thermocouple extension from the edges of a cavity (see figs. 6 and 8 showing and teaching antenna arms 43 which are part of micro bridge 51 of thermocouple 44 with “hot thermoelectric (TE) junction 63” [0034] over cavity/volume 64 and include arms 57 and 58 extend fully to the edge of the cavity/volume; see [0034-35]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a thermocouple supported antenna of Setlak with the specific concept of thermocouple arms extending fully across a cavity/volume of Cox. This is because such fully extending thermocouple allows for providing a microbridge with reduced complexity by simplifying and using the thermocouple structure for both structural support and thermal measurement. This is important to provide a smaller, less complicated measurement device with more direct thermal flows.
Regarding claim 2, Setlak teaches that the first antenna is configured to produce heat upon exposure to an electromagnetic wave (at least IR portion of the electromagnetic spectrum produces heat in the antenna(s); [0042] “bowtie dipole antenna 106 having a relative small dimension to efficiently collect infrared energy”; see also abstract and [0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Setlak teaches that the first thermocouple is configured to convert the heat produced by the first antenna into an electrical signal (see [0035] and [0042]; see also [0009] describing the function of a thermocouple to produce temperature dependent voltage -i.e. electrical- signals).
Regarding claim 5, Setlak teaches that the first thermocouple further extends from the first antenna to a third location on the edge of the cavity (at least position of the respective first reference junction of the thermocouple - 115; see [0044] including and especially “reference junction 115 is also shown relatively close to the measuring junction 114 for clarity of explanation; however, in other advantageous embodiments, the reference junction may be spaced considerably further away from the measuring junction”).
Regarding claim 6, Setlak teaches that the second thermocouple further extends from the second antenna to a fourth location on the edge of the cavity (at least position of the respective second reference junction of the thermocouple - 115; see [0044] including and especially “reference junction 115 is also shown relatively close to the measuring junction 114 for clarity of explanation; however, in other advantageous embodiments, the reference junction may be spaced considerably further away from the measuring junction”).
Regarding claim 7, Setlak teaches a third antenna suspended over the cavity at a third position different from both of the first position and the second position; and a third thermocouple connected to the third antenna (see at least fig. 5 showing at least three antenna / thermocouple infrared sensing units 109 at different positions), wherein the third thermocouple supports the third antenna over the cavity and extends from the third antenna to a third location on the edge of the cavity different than both of the first location and the second location (see at least fig. 5 in view of fig. 6 showing at least three antenna / thermocouple infrared sensing units 109 having different locations on the edge of the cavity 125).
Regarding claim 8, Setlak teaches a fourth antenna suspended over the cavity at a fourth position different from each of the first position, the second position, and the third position; and a fourth thermocouple connected to the fourth antenna (see at least fig. 5 showing at least four antenna / thermocouple infrared sensing units 109 at different positions), wherein the fourth thermocouple supports the fourth antenna over the cavity and extends from the fourth antenna to a fourth location on the edge of the cavity different than each of the first location, the second location, and the third location (see at least fig. 5 in view of fig. 6 showing at least four antenna / thermocouple infrared sensing units 109 having different locations on the edge of the cavity 125).
Regarding claim 9, Setlak teaches that each of the first antenna and the second antenna are dipole antennas (antennas 106 are dipole antennas; see at least [0042-43]).
Regarding claim 12, Setlak teaches a method of using the apparatus of claim 1 as an infrared light sensor (abstract; [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, Setlak teaches an apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a first antenna (at least one of “bowtie dipole antenna 106” [0042]; see fig. 5; see [0042-43] and [0048]) suspended over a first cavity (see figs. 5 and 6 showing this first antenna 106 of antennas 106 suspended over cavity / aperture at a first position; referenced as circular aperture 125 in figs. 10 and 11);
a first thermocouple connected to the first antenna (at least the thermocouple 114 connected to the first antenna 106 by respective via 112; see fig. 6; [0044] and [0048]), wherein the first thermocouple supports the first antenna over the first cavity (see figs. 5-6 and 10-11 showing this supported configuration over aperture 125) and extends to an edge of the first cavity (see [0043-44] and [0046-47]; see figs. 5-8 showing examples of such extension to edge of cavity for support; see also figs. 10 and 11);
a second antenna suspended over a second cavity different from the first cavity ([0039] teaches an array of IR sensing pixels each with the antenna / thermocouple / cavity structure as above; the second antenna is an antenna on a second pixel); and
a second thermocouple connected to the second antenna (at least the thermocouple 114 connected to the first antenna 106 by respective via 112 in the second pixel; see [0035]; [0044] and [0048]), wherein the second thermocouple supports the second antenna over the second cavity (see figs. 5-6 and 10-11 showing this supported configuration over aperture 125) and extends to an edge of the second cavity (see [0043-44] and [0046-47]; see figs. 5-8 showing examples of such extension to edge of cavity for support; see also figs. 10 and 11).
Setlak does not directly state that the extension from the first and second antennas is fully by the thermocouples (teaching that the full extension is by the hot junction portion of the thermocouple structures -114- and by vias -112- which are only arguably part of the totality of the thermocouple structure).
Regardless, Cox teaches direct and specific full thermocouple extension from the edges of a cavity (see figs. 6 and 8 showing and teaching antenna arms 43 which are part of micro bridge 51 of thermocouple 44 with “hot thermoelectric (TE) junction 63” [0034] over cavity/volume 64 and include arms 57 and 58 extend fully to the edge of the cavity/volume; see [0034-35]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a thermocouple supported antenna of Setlak with the specific concept of thermocouple arms extending fully across a cavity/volume of Cox. This is because such fully extending thermocouple allows for providing a microbridge with reduced complexity by simplifying and using the thermocouple structure for both structural support and thermal measurement. This is important to provide a smaller, less complicated measurement device with more direct thermal flows.
Regarding claim 14, Setlak teaches a processor (at least 84; [0033]) electrically connected to the first thermocouple and the second thermocouple ([0035] “processor 84 is connected to the infrared sensing pixels”).
Regarding claim 18, Setlak lacks direct and specific teaching that the first cavity and the second cavity are each semi-spherical.
However, Setlak does disclose top views of circular/round aperture/cavity configurations (see figs. 5, 10 and 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a round/circular cavities of Setlak with a variety of desired geometries such as semi or hemi spherical. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected using a semi spherical to be one of several straightforward ways of capturing/reflecting electromagnetic radiation to the antenna/thermocouple structures for measurement because partial spheres are known shapes with well understood distance calculations to points in or on the partial sphere which allows for evening of the light distribution in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 19, Setlak (as best understood, see 112(b) section above) teaches that the first antenna is located at or near a focal point of the first cavity (see at least figs. 10 and 11 showing antenna located near a focal point).
Regarding claim 20, Setlak teaches a method of using the apparatus of claim 13 as a wavefront sensor (see [0035] teaching regarding using the sensor as a sensor for subdermal radiation which includes infrared pulses and wavefronts; see also [0046] regarding current wave produce by the impinging light).
Regarding claim 21, Setlak lacks teaching that the first antenna and the second antenna each comprise a spiral antenna, wherein the spiral antenna is configured to remove linear polarization response and provide circular polarization selectivity.
However, Cox teaches a spiral antenna (see at least fig. 6; [0044]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a thermocouple supported antenna of Setlak with the specific concept of a spiral antenna of Cox. This is because a spiral antenna allows for providing independent polarization sensitivity (see [0044] of Cox). This is important to provide this desired polarization sensitivity to the measurements for an end user.
Regarding claim 22, Setlak teaches a first lead line connected to the first thermocouple (at least elements 122/123 with elements 120/121 and elements 117a/b act at leads for the thermocouple; see fig. 6 showing these elements leading to and forming portions of the thermocouples; see [0044] describing the connections), wherein at least one of the first lead line or the first thermocouple comprises a semiconductor material ([0043-44]; “The thermocouple junctions are defined between the polysilicon of the first poly layer and the aluminum of the first metal layer” [0044]).
Regarding claim 23, Setlak teaches that the first antenna is comprised of a metal ([0043] teaches that the bowtie dipole antennas are metal: “the upper metal layer is patterned to form … the bowtie dipole antenna 106”).
Regarding claim 24, Setlak (as best understood, see 112(b) section above) teaches that the at least one of the first lead line or the first thermocouple is further comprised of Bismuth Telluride or other high ZT material (see at least [0043-44] teaching regarding materials for the lead lines and thermocouple structures; see also [0063] teaching regarding “undoped crystalline silicon that has a fairly low thermal conductivity” for the thermocouples).
Regarding claim 25, Setlak lacks direct and specific teaching that the apparatus is hermetically sealed and the cavity contains a vacuum.
However, Cox teaches that the antenna/thermocouple device is in “a hermetic vacuum package” ([0045]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a thermocouple supported antenna of Setlak with the specific concept of a hermetic vacuum package of Cox. This is because a hermetic vacuum package allows for reducing interference from convective heat sources and prevents contamination of the micro elements. This is important to provide a robust and accurate sensor for an end user.
Regarding claim 27, Setlak teaches a plurality of additional cavities each having a single antenna (0048] “Each infrared sensing pixel 103, 103' may comprise … at least one infrared antenna 106”; please note that while the illustrating examples given in the drawings show plural antennas the term “at least one” also includes the singular concept as here).
Regarding claim 28, Setlak teaches a processor (84; see fig. 3) configured to combine responses from multiple antennas (see fig. 4 showing this data flowing from plural pixels/antennas to the processor; see [0035]) to synthesize an arbitrary spectral response from the multiple antennas ([0004] teaches that uses for infrared sensors include spectroscopic imaging).
Regarding claim 29, Setlak (as best understood, see 112(b) section above) teaches the method of using the apparatus of claim 27, as an ultra-low weight spectrograph (see [0042] teaching that the device has antenna in the micro range; see [0004] which teaches that uses for infrared sensors include spectroscopic imaging).
Regarding claim 31, Setlak teaches an apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a single antenna (at least a single “bowtie dipole antenna 106” [0042]; see [0042-43]; see especially [0048] “Each infrared sensing pixel 103, 103' may comprise … at least one infrared antenna 106”; please note that while the illustrating examples given in the drawings show plural antennas the term “at least one” also includes the singular concept as here) suspended over a cavity (see figs. 5 and 6 showing the antenna 106 suspended over the cavity / aperture; referenced as circular aperture 125 in figs. 10 and 11), and further wherein the single antenna is the only antenna suspended over the cavity ([0048] “Each infrared sensing pixel 103, 103' may comprise … at least one infrared antenna 106”; please note that while the illustrating examples given in the drawings show plural antennas the term “at least one” also includes the singular concept as here); and
a thermocouple connected to the single antenna (at least the thermocouple 114 connected to the one antenna 106 by respective via 112; see fig. 6; [0044] and [0048]), wherein the thermocouple supports the single antenna over the cavity (see figs. 5-6 and 10-11 showing this supported configuration over aperture 125) and extends to a location on an edge of the cavity (see [0043-44] and [0046-47]; see figs. 5-8 showing examples of such extension to edge of cavity for support; see also figs. 10 and 11).
Setlak does not directly state that the extension from the single antenna is fully by the thermocouple (teaching that the full extension is by the hot junction portion of the thermocouple structure -114- and by via -112- which is only arguably part of the totality of the thermocouple structure) and that the cavity is generally semi-spherical in shape.
However, Setlak does disclose top views of circular/round aperture/cavity configurations (see figs. 5, 10 and 11).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a round/circular cavities of Setlak with a variety of desired geometries such as semi or hemi spherical. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected using a semi spherical to be one of several straightforward ways of capturing/reflecting electromagnetic radiation to the antenna/thermocouple structures for measurement because partial spheres are known shapes with well understood distance calculations to points in or on the partial sphere which allows for evening of the light distribution in a predictable manner.
Further, Cox teaches direct and specific full thermocouple extension from the edges of a cavity (see figs. 6 and 8 showing and teaching antenna arms 43 which are part of micro bridge 51 of thermocouple 44 with “hot thermoelectric (TE) junction 63” [0034] over cavity/volume 64 and include arms 57 and 58 extend fully to the edge of the cavity/volume; see [0034-35]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the concept of a thermocouple supported antenna of Setlak with the specific concept of thermocouple arms extending fully across a cavity/volume of Cox. This is because such fully extending thermocouple allows for providing a microbridge with reduced complexity by simplifying and using the thermocouple structure for both structural support and thermal measurement. This is important to provide a smaller, less complicated measurement device with more direct thermal flows.
Additionally, it has been held that omission of an element (here the more than one antenna) and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (electromagnetic/infrared/light detection by an antenna/thermocouple) involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04-II-A/B.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-11, 15-17, 26 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The best prior art of record Setlak (US 20060062439) and Cox et al. (US 20120199743), fail to specifically teach the invention as claimed.
The limitations in the base claims when combined with the specific limitations detailed as follows in dependent claims 4, 10, 15, 26, 27 and 30 as well as all limitations additionally in the indicated claims distinguish the present invention from the combined prior art.
Specifically, regarding claim 4: the limitations regarding the angles of incidence.
Specifically, regarding claim 10 (with further depending claim 11): the limitations regarding the specific locations with respect to the antennas.
Specifically, regarding claim 15 (with further depending claims 16 and 17): the limitations regarding the angles of incidence.
Specifically, regarding claim 26: the limitations regarding the pressure adjustability for trading sensitivity / response time.
Specifically, regarding claim 30: the limitations regarding a processor configured to determine an estimated pulse length or coherence of a laser beam.
Hence the prior art of record fails to teach the invention as set forth in claims 4, 10-11, 15-17, 26 and 30. The examiner cannot find specific teaching of the invention, nor reasons within the cited art to combine the elements of these references other than applicant’s own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
See especially:
Wood et al. (US 20070278407); teaching regarding a radiation sensor with a micro antenna an a thermocouple near the middle of a microstructure; abstract, [0016] and figs. 2A, 3A-C and 5B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP COTEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/PHILIP L COTEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
