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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 was considered by the examiner.
The cited PCT international search report filed/entered 01/06/2025 have been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 5,695,283).
With regard to claim 1, Johnson teaches a thermal sensor having a thermally conductive substrate 46 with active, radiation-sensitive junctions 32/40 and blind compensating junctions 36/44 on its common surface. The active junctions define a thermal detection region because their high-emissivity coating absorbs target radiation; the blind junctions define a thermal reference region because their low-emissivity coating substantially suppresses target-radiation absorption while retaining ambient response. The interleaved, electrically opposing thermocouples form thermopile 12 and output the thermal differential after common ambient components cancel. Notice that the array of thermocouples is the group of thermocouples- ordinarily implemented as a thermopile that collectively measure at the temperature difference between the thermal detection region and the thermal reference region [US 5,695,283, Col. 1, Lines 37–54; Col. 2, Lines 37–65; Col. 3, Lines 1–24; Figs. 1–2].
With regard to claim 2, Johnson teaches a first signal junction block comprising the repeated active junctions 32, 32A–32C and a first reference junction block comprising the repeated blind junctions 36, 36A–36C. Adjacent active and blind junctions are electrically interconnected in an alternating series stack; the active junction responds to target radiation while the blind junction supplies the opposed ambient reference, so each repeated active/blind thermoelectric pair probes the active temperature relative to the blind temperature [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 24–39; Col. 4, Lines 1–20; Figs. 1–2].
With regard to claim 9, Johnson teaches a reflective, low-emissivity layer on the blind reference junctions, including gold, silver, or aluminum [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 5–16; Col. 6, Lines 8–12].
With regard to claim 10, Johnson further teaches an absorbing, high-emissivity carbon-black layer on the active detection junctions [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 5–12; Col. 6, Lines 2–7].
With regard to claim 12, Johnson teaches operating the sensor to determine target radiation: the thermopile produces a first voltage signal representative of target temperature/radiation from the differential response of its active and blind junctions, and measurement electronics 64 monitor and process that signal to drive the target-temperature display [US 5,695,283, Col. 4, Lines 22–27; Col. 5, Lines 22–41; Fig. 4]. The electrical signal therefore indicates the thermal differential and the radiation quantity is determined from that differential.
With regard to claim 17, Johnson teaches the thermal sensor of claim 1 enclosed in housing 50 beneath window opening 52, with optical filter 54 adjacent the opening so target radiation passes through the window and reaches substrate 46 and thermopile 12 [US 5,695,283, Col. 4, Lines 58–68; Col. 5, Lines 1–7; Fig. 3].
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.
Claim(s) 3, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of Breckenridge(US 3,305,393)..
With regard to claim 3, Johnson teaches the sensor of claim 2, including repeated active and blind junction blocks on a common substrate and an opposed thermopile output [US 5,695,283, Col. 2, Lines 37–65; Col. 3, Lines 1–39; Figs. 1–2].
Johnson, however, does not expressly teach arranging the plural active junctions along a first radial line from the substrate center and the plural blind junctions along a second radial line from the center.
Breckenridge teaches alternate radial strings of thermoelectric junctions radiating from a central disc. Alternate strings are rendered reflective with aluminum, and the intervening strings are rendered absorbing with black paint, providing distinct radial hot/signal and cold/reference junction strings [US 3,305,393, Col. 5, Lines 39–49; Col. 6, Lines 18–30; Figs. 2, 4–5].
In view of the utility of Breckenridge’s radial strings for placing many uniform junctions in limited substrate areas and increasing cumulative thermopile response, it would have been obvious to arrange Johnson’s active and blind junction blocks as respective radial strings. The modification uses Johnson’s existing active/reference differential principle in Breckenridge’s known compact radial geometry and predictably yields the claimed first and second radial lines.
With regard to claim 16, Johnson teaches the method of claim 12 and the active/blind junction blocks used to generate the radiation-indicating differential [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 1–39; Col. 5, Lines 22–41].
Johnson, however, does not expressly teach placing the plural junctions of those blocks along respective lines extending radially from a central substrate region.
Breckenridge teaches alternate absorbing and reflective radial strings of plural thermoelectric junctions radiating from a central disc [US 3,305,393, Col. 5, Lines 39–49; Col. 6, Lines 18–30; Figs. 2, 4–5].
In view of the utility of that radial arrangement for compactly accumulating the output of many junctions, it would have been obvious to operate Johnson’s sensor with its active and blind junction blocks laid out as Breckenridge’s respective radial strings, for the same predictable differential-radiation measurement.
With regard to claim 18, Johnson teaches the housed, windowed sensor of claim 17 and its active/blind junction blocks [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 1–39; Col. 4, Lines 58–68; Fig. 3].
Johnson, however, does not expressly teach that each junction block comprises plural junctions disposed along a radial line extending from the substrate center.
Breckenridge teaches that precise radial-string geometry for alternating absorbing hot junctions and reflective cold junctions [US 3,305,393, Col. 5, Lines 39–49; Col. 6, Lines 18–30; Figs. 2, 4–5].
In view of the utility of Breckenridge’s compact radial geometry and cumulative junction response, it would have been obvious to use those radial strings for Johnson’s active and blind blocks inside Johnson’s existing windowed housing. The housing function is unchanged and the sensor continues to receive target radiation through the window.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of Breckenridge (US 3,305,393), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pleva et al. (DE 196 15 244 B4).
With regard to claim 4, Johnson teaches the sensor according to claim 3 as modified above. For the limitations inherited from claim 3, refer to the rejection of claim 3 above. Johnson, however, does not expressly teach that the first array is one of a plurality of arrays associated with plural detection regions and plural reference regions.
Pleva teaches multiple thermopiles 31, 41, 32, and 42 distributed around a circular substrate and, alternatively, a thermopile subdivided into successively arranged, alternately reverse-polarity groups. The junctions are arranged in repeated exposed signal sectors and shielded reference sectors [DE 196 15 244 B4, [0005], [0018]–[0019]; Figs. 1-2 and 4].
In view of the utility of Pleva’s grouped and alternately opposed thermopile arrangement for compensating disturbances caused by inhomogeneous temperature distributions, it would have been obvious to subdivide the Johnson/Breckenridge radial thermopile into plural arrays respectively associated with plural absorbing signal regions and plural reflective reference regions. The modification repeats known thermocouple groups on the same substrate and predictably supplies spatially matched differential outputs.
With regard to claim 5, Johnson teaches the claimed sensor according to claim 4 as modified above. For the inherited limitations, refer to the rejections of claims 3 and 4 above. Johnson, however, does not expressly teach a second signal junction block and a second reference junction block on respective third and fourth radial lines axially aligned across the center with the first and second lines.
Breckenridge teaches alternate radial strings of thermoelectric junctions radiating from a central disc. Alternate strings are rendered reflective with aluminum, and the intervening strings are rendered absorbing with black paint, providing distinct radial hot/signal and cold/reference junction strings [US 3,305,393, Col. 5, Lines 39–49; Col. 6, Lines 18–30; Figs. 2, 4–5]. As such, Breckenridge supplies the claimed radial-line arrangement.
Pleva teaches thirty-two junctions symmetrically distributed in eight radial sectors, with exposed signal junction sectors alternating with reference junction sectors covered by a Maltese-cross shield. Opposite repeated sectors are axially aligned (i.e., aligned along an axis in the plane of the sensor passing through the central region; so the 1st and 3rd lines are opposite rays of on one diameter and the 2nd and 4th lines are opposite rays of another diameter, see figure 2 group 31, 32, 41 and 42) through the substrate center [DE 196 15 244 B4, [0005], [0017], [0019]; Figs. 1-2 and 4].
In view of the utility of Pleva’s rotationally symmetric exposed/shielded sector arrangement for maintaining spatially balanced compensation, it would have been obvious to select an opposite exposed sector as the second signal block and an opposite shielded sector as the second reference block in the Johnson/Breckenridge radial sensor. This selection preserves the existing operating principle and predictably produces the claimed aligned first/third and second/fourth lines.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of Breckenridge (US 3,305,393) and Pleva et al. (DE 196 15 244 B4), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Udrea et al. (US 8,552,380 B1).
With regard to claim 6, Johnson teaches the claimed sensor according to claim 5 as modified above. For all inherited limitations, refer to the rejections of claims 3–5 above. Johnson, however, does not expressly teach second, third, and fourth thermocouple arrays respectively probing first-signal/second-reference, second-signal/first-reference, and second-signal/second-reference temperatures.
Pleva teaches subdividing a thermopile into successively arranged, alternately reverse-polarity groups specifically to compensate disturbances caused by an inhomogeneous temperature distribution, and places multiple groups among repeated exposed and shielded sectors [DE 196 15 244 B4, [0005], [0019]; Fig. 4]. Pleva, however, does not expressly identify the groups as every pairing of two selected signal blocks and two selected reference blocks.
Udrea teaches an array of four closely packed membrane detectors, each having its own thermopile, and teaches connecting the thermopiles in series to increase sensitivity and overall signal [US 8,552,380 B1, Col. 5, Lines 37–59; Col. 10, Lines 27–35; Fig. 18].
In view of the utility of Pleva’s multiple grouped comparisons for compensating spatially inhomogeneous temperature and the utility of Udrea’s four thermopiles for increasing sensitivity and overall signal, it would have been obvious to implement the four grouped thermopile paths in the Johnson/Breckenridge/Pleva sensor as separately identifiable arrays and to use the finite four pairings of the two selected signal blocks and two selected reference blocks. Each added path is a repetition of the known Seebeck comparison between an exposed junction block and a shielded reference block, and the predictable result is four differential responses that increase available signal and permit spatial compensation. This is an obviousness conclusion, not a finding that either Pleva or Udrea expressly anticipates the four claimed pairings.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of DeWes et al. (US 2007/0095380 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Johnson teaches the method of claim 12, including detecting the differential response between radiation-sensitive active junctions and blind reference junctions and determining target radiation from the resulting signal [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 1–24; Col. 5, Lines 22–41; Fig. 4].
Johnson, however, does not expressly teach detecting a second thermal differential with a second thermocouple array between a second detection region and a second reference region.
DeWes teaches two interleaved thermopiles 206A and 206B on one IR sensor, each having its own serial thermocouple path between membrane measurement junctions and frame reference junctions [US 2007/0095380 A1, [0015]–[0016], [0025]–[0026], Figs. 2–3].
In view of the utility of DeWes’s second interleaved thermopile for providing an additional, thermally matched detector output without enlarging the sensor footprint, it would have been obvious to add that second active/reference differential channel to Johnson’s sensor and base the radiation determination on both detected differentials.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of DeWes et al. (US 2007/0095380 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pleva et al. (DE 196 15 244 B4) and Udrea et al. (US 8,552,380 B1).
With regard to claim 14, Johnson teaches the method according to claim 13 as modified above. For the inherited first and second differential detections, refer to the rejection of claim 13 above. Johnson, however, does not expressly teach detecting, with third and fourth physical thermocouple arrays, the first-detection/second-reference and second-detection/first-reference crossed differentials.
Pleva teaches multiple exposed-to-shielded thermopile groups arranged to compensate spatially inhomogeneous temperature [DE 196 15 244 B4, [0005], [0019]; Fig. 4]. Udrea teaches four membrane thermopiles that may be connected in series to increase detector sensitivity and overall signal [US 8,552,380 B1, Col. 5, Lines 37–59; Col. 10, Lines 27–35; Fig. 18].
In view of the utility of Pleva’s grouped differential comparisons for spatial compensation and Udrea’s four-pile array for increased signal, it would have been obvious to operate the Johnson/DeWes sensor with third and fourth arrays assigned to the two remaining crossed signal/reference pairings and to base the radiation determination on those additional detected differentials. The modification merely measures the remaining known pairings and predictably supplies additional spatially compensating information.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of Breckenridge (US 3,305,393), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pleva et al. (DE 196 15 244 B4) and Udrea et al. (US 8,552,380 B1).
With regard to claim 19, Johnson teaches the housed thermal-sensor system according to claim 18 as modified above. For the windowed housing and first radial signal/reference blocks, refer to the rejection of claim 18 above. Johnson, however, does not expressly teach the second axially aligned signal/reference blocks and the additional three arrays completing all four signal/reference pairings.
Pleva teaches symmetric opposed exposed and shielded junction sectors and multiple alternately opposed thermopile groups on a circular substrate [DE 196 15 244 B4, [0005], [0017]–[0019]; Fig. 4]. Udrea teaches four closely packed membrane thermopiles in a two-by-two array and series connection for greater sensitivity [US 8,552,380 B1, Col. 5, Lines 37–59; Col. 10, Lines 27–35; Fig. 18].
In view of the utility of Pleva’s symmetric grouped layout for compensating spatial temperature nonuniformity and Udrea’s four thermopiles for increasing sensitivity, it would have been obvious to incorporate the selected opposed Pleva signal/reference sectors and four separate differential arrays into Johnson’s already windowed system. The housing continues to admit radiation in the same manner, and the predictable result is the complete set of four differential paths recited in claim 19.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5,695,283) in view of Badloe et al. (Journal of Nanomaterials 2017, Article ID 2361042, DOI 10.1155/2017/2361042).
With regard to claim 21, Johnson teaches the thermal sensor system of claim 17 with an absorbing carbon-black layer on the active detection region and a reflective low-emissivity metal layer on the blind reference region [US 5,695,283, Col. 3, Lines 5–16; Col. 4, Lines 58–68; Figs. 2–3].
Johnson, however, does not expressly teach nanostructuring both layers to provide their respective absorption and reflection functions.
Badloe teaches subwavelength metal/dielectric nanostructures and metasurfaces engineered to provide high absorption, including flat nanostructured absorber surfaces, and separately teaches nanostructured/metasurface reflectors for high-efficiency reflection [Badloe et al., pp. 1–2, §2.2; pp. 12–14, §3 and Fig. 19].
In view of the utility of Badloe’s nanostructures for tuning and increasing the desired optical response in compact surfaces, it would have been obvious to replace or structure Johnson’s conventional absorbing and reflective coatings with corresponding nanostructured absorber and reflector layers. The substitution preserves Johnson’s differential thermal function and predictably strengthens the optical contrast between active and reference regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 20 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:
With regard to claim 7, the applied claim-6 combination does not expressly teach radial signal thermocouples and radial reference thermocouples separately detecting, within the respective detection and reference regions, center-to-periphery thermal differentials. The closest radial references compare membrane measurement junctions with frame reference junctions rather than measuring both claimed within-region gradients. Claim 7 therefore contains otherwise allowable subject matter.
With regard to claim 8, the applied references do not expressly teach that the across-center separation of the opposed signal blocks is larger than the separation of the opposed reference blocks, and the record does not supply a claim-specific technical reason for deliberately introducing that inequality. The publication associates the distorted symmetry with stabilizing thermocouple temperature along its length and mitigating local minima or maxima [0143]–[0149]. Claim 8 therefore contains otherwise allowable subject matter.
With regard to claim 15, the applied claim-14 combination does not teach detecting both radial signal and radial reference center-to-periphery differentials and determining an error correction based at least in part on the radial signal differential. This added physical measurement-and-correction relationship remains otherwise allowable.
With regard to claim 20, the applied claim-19 combination does not teach the added radial signal and radial reference thermocouples that separately detect the two center-to-periphery differentials within the respective plural regions. Claim 20 therefore contains otherwise allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571) 272-5975. 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights