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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 5-11 do not have reference numbers on any elements. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “a target” in lines 3 and 8, claim 1; lines 4 and 7, claim 16; lines 3 and 6, claim 17. It is assumed the second instance should be “the target”, as this is constant with the figures, ref 104. 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.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises determining an angular velocity, a rotational velocity, an angular acceleration, a rotational acceleration, or any of these.” It is unclear how “determining the angular velocity” can comprise “determining an angular velocity” or other quantities. It’s unclear if the claim further limits the parent claim. Logically written, the claim recites: wherein A is A or B or C or D or any of A, B, C, D. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as “wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises determining an angular velocity”, which results in the below rejection under 112(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim is interpreted as “wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises determining an angular velocity”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite “instructions” to cause a processor to: “receive” data, “receive” data, and “determine” data, claim 16; and a method comprising: “receiving” data, “receiving” data, and “determining” data, claim 17.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is to generate data and perform mathematical analysis on said data. As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations amount to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ 2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no direct application of a judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no positively recited steps as to how the data is measured; instead, the claim only requires acquiring and analyzing data. Without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is measured, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There does not appear to be any additional limitation in the claim other than the abstract idea of acquiring data and analyzing data. Since there are no additional limitations, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
While claim 16 is interpreted as comprising computer processors performing the method, this is not sufficient to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. A claim can still recite a mental process even if the limitations found in the claim are claimed as being performed on a computer, particularly when the mental process is performed on a generic computer. The courts have held that a mental process that is performed on a generic computer is considered to be an abstract idea as per Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
See also Example 47, claim 2, in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Available here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
Regarding claims 1-15, no rejection is made under 35 USC 101 as the claims recite a first and second “electromagnetic radiation device”, which is significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao, Bingkun, et al. "Measurement of rotation speed based on double-beam self-mixing speckle interference." Optics letters 43.7 (2018): 1531-1533, hereinafter “Gao”.
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses a detection device (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first electromagnetic radiation device (Fig. 1, ref LD1, page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2), configured to emit first electromagnetic radiation toward a target at a first time period (ref S, col. 2, paragraph 2), to receive a reflection of the first electromagnetic radiation from the target emitted at the first time period (col. 2, paragraph 1), and to modulate first electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period by the received reflection of the first electromagnetic radiation (col. 2, paragraph 1);
a second electromagnetic radiation device (Fig. 1, ref LD2, col. 2, paragraph 2), configured to emit second electromagnetic radiation toward a target at the first time period (ref S, col. 2, paragraph 2), to receive a reflection of the second electromagnetic radiation from the target emitted at the first time period (col. 2, paragraph 1), to modulate second electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period by the received reflection of the second electromagnetic radiation (col. 2, paragraph 1), wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is a predetermined distance from the first electromagnetic radiation device (as shown in Fig. 1); and
a processor, configured to determine an angular velocity of the target (page 1532, col. 2, paragraph 2-3, Fig. 2, Equation 13) based on a first electrical signal representing the modulated first electromagnetic radiation, a second electrical signal representing the modulated second electromagnetic radiation, and the predetermined distance (page 1532, col. 2, paragraph 2-3, Fig. 2, Equations 9-11).
Regarding claim 7, Gao discloses wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises determining an angular velocity, a rotational velocity, an angular acceleration, a rotational acceleration, or any of these (page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 17, Gao discloses a method of rotation detection (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
receiving a first electrical signal representing a reflection of first electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, from ref LD1, page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2) off of a target at a first time period (ref S, col. 2, paragraph 2), as modulated by first electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period (col. 2, paragraph 1);
receiving a second electrical signal representing a reflection of second electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1, from ref LD2, page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2) off of a target at the first time period (ref S, col. 2, paragraph 2), as modulated by second electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period (col. 2, paragraph 1); and
determining an angular velocity (page 1532, col. 2, paragraph 2-3, Fig. 2, Equation 13).
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 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holenarsipur et al. (US20190317454A1), hereinafter “Holenarsipur”.
Regarding claim 2, Gao is silent regarding wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device and the second electromagnetic radiation device are each vertical cavity surface emitting lasers.
However, Holenarsipur teaches a rotation sensor (abstract, Fig. 11) including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device and the second electromagnetic radiation device are each vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (ref paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Holenarsipur by including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device and the second electromagnetic radiation device are each vertical cavity surface emitting lasers in order to have low divergence beam, using a lower power source.
Regarding claim 3, Gao is silent regarding a die, wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device and the second electromagnetic radiation device are each disposed on or in the die at the predetermined distance.
However, Holenarsipur teaches further comprising a die (Fig. 11, ref 1112), wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device (ref 1102) and the second electromagnetic radiation device (ref 1106) are each disposed on or in the die at the predetermined distance (as shown in Fig. 11, paragraph [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Holenarsipur by including a die, wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device and the second electromagnetic radiation device are each disposed on or in the die at the predetermined distance in order to have a compact device, with a known, constant separation of sources.
Regarding claim 5, Gao is silent regarding further comprising: a first sensor, configured to generate the first electrical signal; and a second sensor, configured to generate the second electrical signal.
However, Holenarsipur teaches a first sensor, configured to generate the first electrical signal; and a second sensor, configured to generate the second electrical signal (ref 1110, paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Holenarsipur by including : a first sensor, configured to generate the first electrical signal; and a second sensor, configured to generate the second electrical signal in order to monitor the junction voltage of each radiation source. paragraph [0082]
Regarding claim 6, Gao is silent regarding wherein the first sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a first reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a second reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the first electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the first electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the first electromagnetic radiation; and wherein the second sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the second electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the second electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the second electromagnetic radiation.
However, Holenarsipur teaches wherein the first sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a first reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a second reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the first electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the first electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the first electromagnetic radiation; and wherein the second sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the second electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the second electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the second electromagnetic radiation (Figs. 5A-C, paragraphs [0007], [0039], [0052], [0062]-[0064], [0082], [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Holenarsipur by including wherein the first sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a first reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a voltage sensor, configured to detect a voltage variation, relative to a second reference voltage, at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the first electromagnetic radiation device; and wherein the second sensor is a current sensor, configured to detect a current variation at a PN-junction of the second electromagnetic radiation device; or wherein the first sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the first electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the first electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the first electromagnetic radiation; and wherein the second sensor is a photodiode, configured to detect electromagnetic radiation within the second electromagnetic radiation device, wherein the detected electromagnetic radiation comprises an output of the second electromagnetic radiation device and the reflection of the second electromagnetic radiation in order to monitor the movement of the rotating object, paragraphs [0007], [0039].
Regarding claim 10, Gao is silent regarding wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises the processor transforming the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal from a time domain into a frequency domain.
However, Holenarsipur teaches wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises the processor transforming the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal from a time domain into a frequency domain (paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Holenarsipur by including wherein determining the angular velocity of the target comprises the processor transforming the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal from a time domain into a frequency domain in order to determine the spectral density, as the strongest frequency component of the interference signal can be interpreted as a Doppler shift, paragraph [0040].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu, Xin, et al. "High sensitivity and full-circle optical rotary sensor for non-cooperatively tracing wrist tremor with nanoradian resolution." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 69.9 (2021): 9605-9612, hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claim 4, Gao is silent regarding wherein the processor is configured to determine a first phase shift of the target from the first electrical signal, and a second phase shift of the target from the second electrical signal; wherein the processor is configured to determine the angular velocity based on a difference between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, and the predetermined distance.
However, Xu teaches a rotary sensor (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the processor is configured to determine a first phase shift of the target from the first electrical signal, and a second phase shift of the target from the second electrical signal; wherein the processor is configured to determine the angular velocity based on a difference between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, and the predetermined distance (page 9606, col. 2, - page 9607 col. 1, Sec. B. Sensing Principle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Xu by including wherein the processor is configured to determine a first phase shift of the target from the first electrical signal, and a second phase shift of the target from the second electrical signal; wherein the processor is configured to determine the angular velocity based on a difference between the first phase shift and the second phase shift, and the predetermined distance in order to extract motion information from signals and provide an alternate method of processing Gao’s two signals.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norgia, Michele, and Silvano Donati. "A displacement-measuring instrument utilizing self-mixing interferometry." IEEE Transactions on instrumentation and measurement 52.6 (2003): 1765-1770, hereinafter “Norgia”.
Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches wherein determining the angular velocity of the target (page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2) but is silent regarding where it comprises the processor determining a number of first electrical signal peaks, in which the first electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold.
However, Norgia teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including the processor determining a number of first electrical signal peaks, in which the first electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold (page 1768-69, Sec. V, Analog and Digital Signal Processing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Norgia by including the processor determining a number of first electrical signal peaks, in which the first electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold in order to extract motion information from the self-mixing interferometry signals.
Regarding claim 9, Gao teaches wherein determining the angular velocity of the target (page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2) but is silent regarding the processor determining a number of second electrical signal peaks, in which the second electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold.
However, Norgia teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including processor determining a number of second electrical signal peaks, in which the second electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold (page 1768-69, Sec. V, Analog and Digital Signal Processing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Norgia by including the processor determining a number of second electrical signal peaks, in which the second electrical signal rises above a predetermined threshold in order to extract motion information from the self-mixing interferometry signals.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ottonelli, Simona, et al. "Laser-self-mixing interferometry for mechatronics applications." Sensors 9.05 (2009): 3527-3548, hereinafter “Ottonelli”.
Regarding claim 11, Gao teaches wherein the target is configured to rotate about a first axis (page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 1, Fig. 1), but is silent regarding wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a second axis that is non-parallel to the first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a third axis that is parallel to the second axis.
However, Ottonelli teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a second axis that is non-parallel to the first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a third axis that is parallel to the second axis (pages 3533-3534, Sec. 3.1 Basic principle, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Ottonelli by including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a second axis that is non-parallel to the first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct the first electromagnetic radiation along a third axis that is parallel to the second axis in order to have spatially separated measurements while allowing differential measurements of rotational motion.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Ottonelli as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Xu, Xin, et al. "High sensitivity and full-circle optical rotary sensor for non-cooperatively tracing wrist tremor with nanoradian resolution." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 69.9 (2021): 9605-9612, hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claim 12, Gao is silent regarding wherein the processor is further configured to determine the angular velocity of the target using an angle of the first axis relative to the second axis or the third axis.
However, Xu teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including wherein the processor is further configured to determine the angular velocity of the target using an angle of the first axis relative to the second axis or the third axis (pages 9606-9607, Sec. II Design & Principle, Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Xu by including wherein the processor is further configured to determine the angular velocity of the target using an angle of the first axis relative to the second axis or the third axis in order to account for known angular relationships between the beam axis and rotational axis to determine the angular velocity.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu.
Regarding claim 13, Gao is silent regarding wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is between the first axis and the second axis.
However, Xu teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is between the first axis and the second axis (pages 9606-9607, Sec. II Design & Principle, Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Xu by including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is between the first axis and the second axis in order to account for known angular relationships between the beam axis and rotational axis to determine the angular velocity.
Regarding claim 14, Gao is silent regarding wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is not between the first axis and the second axis.
However, Xu teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract) including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is not between the first axis and the second axis (pages 9606-9607, Sec. II Design & Principle, Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Gao with the teaching of Xu by including wherein the first electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct first electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a first axis; wherein the second electromagnetic radiation device is configured to direct second electromagnetic radiation toward the target along a second axis, and wherein a rotational axis of the target is not between the first axis and the second axis in order to account for known angular relationships between the beam axis and rotational axis to determine the angular velocity.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, and further in view of Jianping et al. (US20060072102A1), hereinafter “Jianping”.
Regarding claim 16, Gao discloses instructions to:
receive a first electrical signal representing a reflection of first electromagnetic radiation off of a target at a first time period (ref S, page 1531, col. 2, paragraph 2), as modulated by first electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period (col. 2, paragraph 1);
receive a second electrical signal representing a reflection of second electromagnetic radiation off of a target at the first time period (ref S, col. 2, paragraph 2), as modulated by second electromagnetic radiation emitted at a second time period (col. 2, paragraph 1); and
determine an angular velocity of the target (page 1532, col. 2, paragraph 2-3, Fig. 2, Equation 13) based on the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal (page 1532, col. 2, paragraph 2-3, Fig. 2, Equations 9-11).
Gao is silent regarding a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed, cause one or more processors to act.
However, Jianping teaches a laser doppler self-mixing method (abstract, Figs. 1, 2) including a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed, cause one or more processors to act (paragraphs [0062], [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Gao with the teaching of Jianping by including a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed, cause one or more processors to act in order to automate the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a detection device, the device comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the processor is further configured, when either an amplitude of the first electrical signal or an amplitude of the second electrical signal falls beneath a predetermined threshold, to determine the angular velocity of the target based on the other of the first electrical signal or the second electrical signal, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suni et al. (US 6233045 B1), teaches self-mixing interferometry (abstract, Fig. 21), including threshold measurements, but does not include the above claimed limitations.
Cihan (US 20210010797 A1) teaches self-mixing interferometry including threshold measurements, but does not include the above claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 E 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights