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 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.
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 4, 5, and 13 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 4, the phrase " QCL type ("Quantum Cascade Laser") or ICL type ("Interband Cascade Laser")" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). See MPEP § 2173.05b III. E.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase " the fibre being of monomode and/or microstructured or hollow-core fibre type" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). See MPEP § 2173.05b III. E.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 1-9 and 11- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolan (“Extreme measurements with Photonic Doppler Velocimetry”) in view of Huffaker (“Laser Doppler Detection Systems for Gas Velocity Measurement”).
Regarding claim 1, Dolan teaches a device for measuring velocity (discloses a fiber based Doppler velocimetry device capable of measuring both individual velocities and velocity distributions, section V. CHARACTERISTIC APPLICATIONS OF PDV and VII. CHALLENGES), or a distribution of velocities, comprising:
at least one optical fibre for directing a radiation produced by the at least one first laser radiation source(teaches the path of the PDV system, the laser light travels through the fiber to the target, and returning target light travels through the fiber system toward the detection system, section I. BACKGROUND), from a first end of the fibre to a second end thereof (discloses a fiber optical path connecting the laser to the probe and target, conventional optical fiber inherently has two ends, figure 2);
detection means (optical receiver), for detecting an interference signal between at least one beam emitted by the at least one first laser radiation source (“PDV is distinguished by interference of target light with light that has never touched the target, section I. BACKGROUND) and a beam reflected or diffused by a sample or object (discloses specular reflection and diffuse/retroreflective return, section II. MEASUREMENT CONFIGURATIONS); and
processing means (digitizer, PDV analysis/FFT/STFT processing, discloses digitizes processes the interference signal and performs mathematical frequency analysis, section VIII. SUMMARY), for processing the interference signal and to calculating a propagation velocity (“PDV can track motion from 0.01 mm/s to >10 km/s”, section V. CHARACTERISTIC APPLICATIONS OF PDV), or a distribution of propagation velocities, of a sample or object on which an incident beam was reflected or diffused.
Dolan fails to disclose at least one first laser radiation source that emits a laser beam with a wavelength of between 3 and 14 μm (discloses shorter wavelengths than 1550 nm and possible alternate wavelengths, section E. Alternate wavelengths ).
Huffaker teaches at least one first laser radiation source that emits a laser beam with a wavelength of between 3 and 14 μm (discloses the CO2 laser with a wavelength of 10.6 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the CO2 laser of Huffaker to Dolan to improve signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity of the coherent Doppler/interference velocity measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Dolan teaches comprising the detection means (optical receiver) being configured to detect an interference signal (discloses the optical receiver detects the optical interference beat signal, section C. Signal variations) between at least one beam emitted by the at least one first laser radiation source (reference laser, “mixing of unshifted target light with the reference laser”, section D. Multiple velocities) and the beam reflected or diffused by the sample or object (discloses target light and diffuse reflection, section A. Directional effects).
Regarding claim 3, Dolan teaches comprising the detection means (optical receiver) being configured to detect an interference signal (discloses the optical receiver detects the optical interference beat signal, section C. Signal variations) between at least one beam emitted by a second laser radiation source (“each target laser is paired with its own reference laser”, section B. Scaling) and the beam reflected or diffused by the sample or object (discloses target light and diffuse reflection, section A. Directional effects).
Regarding claim 4, Dolan fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first and the second laser radiation source is of a QCL type (“Quantum Cascade Laser”) or ICL type (“Interband Cascade Laser”) or a continuous source.
Huffaker teaches wherein at least one of the first and the second laser radiation source (discloses an argon ion laser and a CO2 laser, section II. General Considerations) is of a QCL type (“Quantum Cascade Laser”) or ICL type (“Interband Cascade Laser”) or a continuous source (discloses lasers are continuous-wave lasers, section F. Application to Jet Flows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the CO2 laser of Huffaker to Dolan to improve signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity of the coherent Doppler/interference velocity measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Dolan teaches comprising the fibre being of monomode (discloses low-loss, single-mode fiber, section I. BACKGROUND) and/or microstructured or hollow-core fibre type.
Regarding claim 6, Dolan fails to disclose comprising a bandwidth of the detection means being between approximately 20 MHz and 2 GHz.
Huffaker teaches comprising a bandwidth of the detection means (photomultiplier detector) being between approximately 20 MHz and 2 GHz (discloses the photomultiplier detector has good frequency response up to 300 MHz, section Ill. Instrumentation, Development, and Application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate photomultiplier detector of Huffaker to Dolan to improve high speed signal detection and more reliable measurement of rapidly varying velocities.
Regarding claim 7, Dolan fails to disclose comprising at least one of the first laser radiation source and the second laser radiation source producing a beam a diameter of which is less than 3 mm.
Huffaker teaches comprising at least one of the first laser radiation source and the second laser radiation source(discloses an argon ion laser and a CO2 laser, section II. General Considerations) producing a beam a diameter of which is less than 3 mm (discloses a laser transmitter having a 1-mm transmitter beam/lens radius, section F. Application to Jet Flows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the CO2 laser of Huffaker to Dolan to improve signal-to-noise ratio and sensitivity of the coherent Doppler/interference velocity measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Dolan fails to disclose further comprising collimation means.
Huffaker teaches further comprising collimation means (discloses a beam expander, mirror, and lens for conditioning and directing the laser beam, section A. Wind Tunnel and section F. Application to Jet Flows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate beam expander of Huffaker to Dolan to improve beam collimation and beam quality.
Regarding claim 9, Dolan teaches comprising the interference-signal processing means (digitizer, PDV analysis/FFT/STFT processing, discloses digitizes processes the interference signal and performs mathematical frequency analysis, section VIII. SUMMARY) being configured to produce at least one sliding Fourier transform (discloses repeated FFT processing of separate temporal portions of the signal, section E. Extreme acceleration) of the interference signals (discloses PDV best frequencies and interference, section C. Uncertainty limits) or a wavelet transform.
Regarding claim 11, Dolan teaches a method for measuring velocity (discloses a fiber based Doppler velocimetry device capable of measuring both individual velocities and velocity distributions, section V. CHARACTERISTIC APPLICATIONS OF PDV and VII. CHALLENGES), or a distribution of velocities, using the device according to claim 1, wherein:
the second end of the optical fibre is directed towards a sample (discloses fiber based PDV probes and target measurement, the optical path beam directed toward the measurement target, the measurement detects velocity along the optical path, section A. Directional effects) or an object inside which a velocity of a movement, or a distribution of velocities of movements, is to be detected,
the incident beam of the at least one first laser source penetrates the sample or the object and is reflected or diffused on an interior part of the sample or the object, which moves at a first velocity (discloses velocity measurement associated with a moving shock front within the sample, section C. Magnetically launched flyers) or in accordance with a distribution of velocities;
the reflected or diffused beam and a part of the beam emitted by the at least one first laser radiation source or a second laser radiation source form interferences detected by the detection means (discloses target laser and reference laser arrangement produces the interference current, section II. MEASUREMENT CONFIGURATIONS); and
the first velocity, or the distribution of velocities, is calculated from the interferences (discloses extracting velocity from the interference beat signal, section E. Extreme acceleration).
Regarding claim 12, Dolan teaches wherein a shock is produced inside the sample (discloses a reverberating shock wave in the sample, section A. Plate impact) or object, the incident laser beam being reflected or diffused (discloses diffuse reflection and target light, section A. Directional effects) on a wavefront produced by the shock (discloses motion of the shock front, section C. Magnetically launched flyers).
Regarding claim 13, Dolan teaches wherein the sample or the object includes an explosive material (discloses the use of PDV for explosive experiments , section V. CHARACTERISTIC APPLICATIONS OF PDV) such as TNT (or trinitrotoluene, C7H5N3O6), or RDX (or cyclo-trimethylene-trinitramine, C3H6N6O6), or HMX (or cyclo-tetramethylene-tetranitramine, C4H8N8O8), or an inert material.
Regarding claim 14, Dolan teaches the incident laser beam (discloses a laser beam directed toward a moving target and receives returned optical radiation, section C. Signal variations) being reflected or diffused (section C. Signal variations) on moving particles (section D. Multiple velocities).
Dolan fails to disclose wherein the object is or includes a channel or a pipe or a tube inside which or from which a fluid moves.
Huffaker teaches wherein the object is or includes a channel or a pipe or a tube (figure10) inside which or from which a fluid moves (discloses measures a moving gas flow/jet, section F. Application to Jet Flows).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate LDV flow scattering configuration of Huffaker to Dolan to improve velocity measurement of moving tracer particles within a flowing fluid.
Regarding claim 15, Dolan teaches wherein the velocity is calculated by Fourier transform of the interference signal (discloses repeated FFT processing of separate temporal portions of the signal, extracting velocity from the interference beat signal, section E. Extreme acceleration) or by wavelets or by two-phase processing.
Regarding claim 16, Dolan fails to disclose wherein a plurality of laser beams are directed towards the sample or the object.
Huffaker teaches wherein a plurality of laser beams are directed towards the sample or the object (discloses multiple focused laser/optical paths directed toward a common scattering volume, section B. Instrument Spatial Resolution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate the multi-beam, multi-component LDV optical arrangement of Huffaker to Dolan to improve multi-directional and spatially resolved velocity measurements of the sample.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolan (“Extreme measurements with Photonic Doppler Velocimetry”) in view of Huffaker (“Laser Doppler Detection Systems for Gas Velocity Measurement”), further in view of Kinrot et al. (US 2003/0142288 A1)(hereinafter, “Kinrot”).
Regarding claim 10, Dolan teaches further comprising sample (discloses specular reflection and diffuse/retroreflective return, section II. MEASUREMENT CONFIGURATIONS), and means for detecting (optical receiver) an interference signal (discloses the optical receiver detects the optical interference beat signal, section C. Signal variations) between the emitted and reflected beams (discloses reference light and Doppler-shifted reflections, section A. Conventional PDV).
Dolan fails to disclose means for phase shifting part of the beam and the interference-signal processing means being configured to implement at least one two-phase processing.
Kinrot teaches means for phase shifting (birefringent plate placed in the optical path to/from the surface, [0560]) part of the beam emitted by the at least one first laser radiation source (discloses local oscillator light experiences double phase shift, [0562]) and the interference-signal processing means(signal processing electronics, [0549]) being configured to implement at least one two-phase processing(discloses producing two detector signals having a 90° temporal phase difference, [0604]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to incorporate phase shifting method of Kinrot to Dolan in view of Huffaker to obtain two phase related interference signals, thereby improving phase discrimination and enabling more reliable determination of the direction and velocity of sample motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/C.X./ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Michael A Lyons/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights