DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first filter" and "the second filter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 25-28, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (US 5372426 A) in view of D2 (US 5877500 A).
With regards to claim 1 and 7, D1 discloses a fire detection system comprising:
a plurality of detectors 344;
a plurality of filters 342;
a non-imaging optical concentrator 320, 420 having an entrance arranged to receive light incident on the fire detector and an exit arranged to deliver the light to a coupled detector (Figs. 7 and 8; column 13, line 32 – column 14, line 2); and
wherein a first of the plurality of filters transmits light of a first wavelength range (blocks light with wavelengths not in the first wavelength range) to a first of the detectors, and a second of the plurality of filters transmits light of a second wavelength range (blocks light with wavelengths not in the second wavelength range) to a second of the detectors, wherein the second wavelength range is different from the first wavelength range (Abstract; column 8, lines 19-41).
D1 does not expressly teach a plurality of non-imaging optical connectors. However, D2 teaches a multichannel infrared detector comprising a plurality of detectors 102, each associated with a respective optical concentrator assembly 104 (Fig. 2; column 2, lines 35-40). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the configuration taught by D2 in order to increase the energy density incident upon the detector elements while improving SNR and reducing crosstalk between detector channels.
With regards to claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the detectors are pyroelectric detectors (column 10, lines 26-27).
With regards to claim 3 and 13, D1 discloses wherein each detector has a receiving surface comprising a layer of pyroelectric material (column 10, lines 26-27) wherein the receiving surface of each of the plurality of pyroelectric detectors is outside of the coupled non-imaging optical concentrator and at least 150 um from the exit of the coupled non-imaging optical concentrator (Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 4, D1, as modified by D2, wherein the filters 342 are positioned between the exits of the non-imaging optical concentrators and the detectors 344 (Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 5, D1 does not teach wherein the filters are positioned in front of the entrances of the non-imaging optical concentrators, although D2 does (Fig. 3). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration as taught by D2 since optical filters perform the same wavelength-function regardless of their particular location along the optical path.
With regards to claim 6, D1 does not teach the claimed configuration, although such a modification would have been known and considered obvious for the same reasons provided above.
With regards to claim 8, D1 discloses the claimed first and second wavelength ranges (column 18, lines 34-35).
With regards to claim 10, D1 does not teach a rectangular cross-section. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross-section of the concentrators with a rectangular cross-section since the geometry of the concentrator was recognized in the art as a result-effective design parameter selected based on detector arrangement and packaging requirements. Selecting a known geometric shape from a finite number of predictable options constitutes no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
With regards to claims 15-17, D2 teaches the claimed configurations (Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 20, D1 discloses wherein the detectors comprise a casing, the casing comprises an entrance window 343 which is coupled to the exit of a non-imaging optical concentrator (Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 21, D1 does not teach wherein the entrance window comprises one of the plurality of filters. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed entrance window in order to reduce component count, simplify assembly, and maintain spectral selectivity.
With regards to claim 25, D1 does not teach the claimed auxiliary pyroelectric detector. However, D1 does teach a reference detector channel, demonstrating that auxiliary detector channels in addition to the primary spectral channels were known (column 9, lines 14-30; column 10, lines 33-35). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed detector in order to obtain a wider field of view and a reference measurement, representing a predictable variation of the known detector architecture.
With regards to claim 26, D1 does not teach the claimed detector. However, those skilled in the art recognize that the FOV of a non-imaging optical concentrator is determined by known geometric parameters of the concentrator and represents optimization of a recognized result-effective variable. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify on concentrator with a larger FOV than another to obtain a desired gain.
With regards to claim 27, D1 does not teach the claimed wavelength range. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed wavelength range since pyroelectric detectors were conventionally used for detection of human and animal presence as desired.
With regards to claim 28, D1 discloses wherein the plurality of detectors comprise a semiconductor material (column 10, lines 33-35).
With regards to claim 32, D1 discloses a method comprising the steps of:
a) collecting light (Abstract; column 8, lines 19-41);
b) converting the collected light into an electrical signal (column 17, lines 59-66);
c) providing a calculated value for the light collected at each detector (column 18, lines 1-3);
d) comparing differences of the calculated values with reference values (column 12, lines 3-9);
e) using the comparisons to classify the signal as indicating or not indicating the presence of a fire (column 19, lines 21-42).
D1 does not teach a pre-determined time interval. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to collect radiation over a predetermined time interval since detector systems generally acquire data over a selected sampling interval and is understood as a routine design parameter based on detector response characteristics, SNR requirements, and processor constraints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040119020 A1 teaches a common aperture multi-mode optical system, comprising: first fore-optics for imaging electromagnetic radiation through a common aperture to an intermediate image plane; a first imaging module having a first beam-splitter located after the common aperture, for dividing the electromagnetic radiation between a first wavelength band and one or more second wavelength bands, a first detector for detecting the first wavelength band, comprising a plurality of reflective concentrators, one or more second detectors for detecting the second wavelength bands; and an interface for attaching the first imaging module to the first fore-optics and alternatively detaching the first imaging module to the first fore-optics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights