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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefinite
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 7 recites:
a transceiver for a signal;
This language appears to include a typographical error (e.g., one or more words is missing) and it is not clear how to interpret it. It is not clear if this is a transceiver for transmitting a signal, or a transceiver for receiving a signal, or a transceiver for both transmitting and receiving a signal, or something else.
Claim 1, lines 8-12 recites:
one or more base stations, each of the base stations comprising a base transceiver:
a transmitter comprising a laser for transmitting a laser beam having a size irradiating the unmanned vehicles, and
a receiver for receiving a modulated reflection of the laser beam from one or more of the MRRs;
It is not clear what relationship exists between the base station, the base transceiver, and the transmitter and receiver. In particular, there is no claim language connecting the base station and base transceiver with the transmitter and the receiver. It is not clear if the transmitter and receiver are part of the base station, or part of the transceiver, or if they have some other relationship to elements in the claim. Furthermore, it is not clear if the transmitter and receiver make up the transceiver, or if they are separate from the transceiver. It may be that this language should be:
one or more base stations, each of the base stations comprising a base transceiver, and each of the base transceivers includes:
a transmitter comprising a laser for transmitting a laser beam having a size irradiating the unmanned vehicles, and
a receiver for receiving a modulated reflection of the laser beam from one or more of the MRRs;
Or it may be that this should be:
one or more base stations, each of the base stations comprising:
a base transceiver[[:]], and
a transmitter comprising a laser for transmitting a laser beam having a size irradiating the unmanned vehicles, and
a receiver for receiving a modulated reflection of the laser beam from one or more of the MRRs;
Or it may be that something else is intended. In any event, the scope is unclear.
Claim 1, last line 14 recites “the position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recites:
calculating the position of the center point from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using the laser beam, and
There are plural unmanned vehicles, each with a center point and each with a modulator. It is not clear if the center point and the modulator are from any of the unmanned vehicles, or from all of the unmanned vehicles, or from one particular unmanned vehicle. It is also not clear if they are from the same unmanned vehicle or different unmanned vehicles.
Claim 1, line 14 recites:
calculating the position of the center point from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using the laser beam, and
The “ranging measurement” is inferentially claimed within the functionality of the “calculating” functionality. It is not clear if this is a required limitation (in which case the Examiner suggests affirmatively claiming it) or if it is non-limiting intended use (in which case the Examiner suggests deleting it to avoid confusion). If it is required, it is also not clear what structure(s) in the claim performs the ranging measurement.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recites:
calculating the position of the center point from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using the laser beam, and
It is not clear how a position can be calculated from a ranging measurement. It seems that there must be some additional information, such as a direction or orientation relative to the device performing the ranging measurement.
Claim 1, last line recites:
timing the signal using the position of the center point.
It is not clear how to interpret this language in light of the unclear language regarding the signal in line 7 as discussed above.
Claim 1, last line recites:
timing the signal using the position of the center point.
There are plural unmanned vehicles, each with a center point. It is not clear if the center point is from any of the unmanned vehicles (in which case the Examiner suggests: “the position of one of the center points”), or from all of the unmanned vehicles (in which case the Examiner suggests “the position of all of the center points”), or if something else is intended.
The Examiner notes that similar issues exist in other dependent claims. For example, in claim 3: “the position of the center point” and “the modulator”, and claim 4: “the modulator” and “center point”, and other claims. Applicant should review the claims and clarify these issues.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the position of the center point is determined with an accuracy within 1/5 15 1 of the operating wavelength of electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength in a range of 0.1 to 20 GHz and/or with the accuracy that allows picosecond timing synchronisation of signals transmitted from the unmanned vehicles.
It is not clear how this further limits the structure of the claim. In other words, it is not clear what structure produces the accuracy recited in the claim.
Claim 4, last paragraph recites:
determining the position of center point from the angle of rotation and the initial coordinate of the modulator.
The absence of an article before “center point” makes is unclear if this is a reference to the center points introduced in claim 1, or if this is a different center point.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the computer calculates the distance for a plurality of the channels and the determines the coordinate as the average measurement for the plurality of the channels.
This appears to be a typographical error. It seems that one or more words is missing or one or more words should be deleted.
Claim 10 recites:
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the MRRs are disposed an the surface of the optical aperture shaped as an octahedron or icosahedron comprising facets disposed about the center point, wherein the facets comprise subdivisions and the number of subdivisions are tailored for a predetermined data rate or robustness in terms of reliability in reflecting the laser beam.
It is not clear what particular structure is within the scope of this language.
Claim 12 , line 5, recites “a transceiver aperture”. It is not clear if this is a “transceiver aperture” in the transceiver in the unmanned vehicle (see claim 1, line 7), or if it is a “transceiver aperture” in the base transceiver (see claim 1, line 8), or if it is a transceiver aperture in some other transceiver.
Claim 12 , line 5, recites “the optical receiver”. It is not clear if this is the “optical receiver” in the unmanned vehicle (see claim 1, line 3), or if it is the (optical) “receiver” in the base stations (see claim 1, line 11).
Claim 13 recites:
13. The system of claim 1 configured as:
a communication system wherein each of the unmanned vehicles comprise the transciever comprising an antenna and the unmanned vehicles are disposed in an interferometric or phased array, wherein timing synchronizes the antennas in a phased array using the position of the center point, or
a remote sensing system wherein the unmanned vehicles each comprise the transceiver for the signal comprising a remote sensing signal, wherein the timing synchronizes the remote sensing signal.
The word “transciever “ appears to be misspelled.
Claim 13 recites:
13. The system of claim 1 configured as:
a communication system wherein each of the unmanned vehicles comprise the transciever comprising an antenna and the unmanned vehicles are disposed in an interferometric or phased array, wherein timing synchronizes the antennas in a phased array using the position of the center point, or
a remote sensing system wherein the unmanned vehicles each comprise the transceiver for the signal comprising a remote sensing signal, wherein the timing synchronizes the remote sensing signal.
Each of the plurality of unmanned vehicles includes a transceiver, and it is not clear which transceiver is being referenced. It may be that this is a reference to only one of the transceivers, or it may be that this is a reference to all of the transceivers, or it may be that something else is intended.
Claim 13 recites:
13. The system of claim 1 configured as:
a communication system wherein each of the unmanned vehicles comprise the transciever comprising an antenna and the unmanned vehicles are disposed in an interferometric or phased array, wherein timing synchronizes the antennas in a phased array using the position of the center point, or
a remote sensing system wherein the unmanned vehicles each comprise the transceiver for the signal comprising a remote sensing signal, wherein the timing synchronizes the remote sensing signal.
It is not clear how to interpret this language because claim 1 already recites that each of the unmanned vehicles include a transceiver.
Claim 13 recites:
13. The system of claim 1 configured as:
a communication system wherein each of the unmanned vehicles comprise the transciever comprising an antenna and the unmanned vehicles are disposed in an interferometric or phased array, wherein timing synchronizes the antennas in a phased array using the position of the center point, or
a remote sensing system wherein the unmanned vehicles each comprise the transceiver for the signal comprising a remote sensing signal, wherein the timing synchronizes the remote sensing signal.
The absence of an article before “timing” makes it unclear if this is a reference to the timing in claim (last line) or if it is a new timing.
Claim 13 recites two alternative embodiments, with the limitations of each embodiment in a single paragraph and using little punction. The Examiner suggests writing claim 13 so that the structure of the embodiments and the elements is more well-defined. For example:
13. The system of claim 1, wherein:
(a) the system is configured as[[:]] a communication system:
wherein the transceiver in each of the unmanned vehicles includes an antenna, and
wherein the unmanned vehicles are disposed in an interferometric or phased array, and
wherein timing synchronizes the antennas in a phased array using the position of the center point,
or
(b) the system is configured as a remote sensing system:
wherein the unmanned vehicles each comprise the transceiver for the signal,
wherein the signal comprises a remote sensing signal, and
wherein the timing synchronizes the remote sensing signal.
This will not solve all of the rejections to this claim, but it will improve the structure of the claim and make it easier to understand.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A computer implemented method of synchronizing a plurality of unmanned vehicles, comprising:
controlling transmission, from one or more base stations, of a laser beam to a plurality of apertures each comprising a plurality of modulated retroreflectors (MRRs), each of the apertures mounted to a different one a plurality of unmanned vehicles that are airborne or spaceborne;
performing a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the MRRs using a retroflection of the laser beam from the MRRs;
calculating a position of the aperture from the coordinate; and
timing data signals received or transmitted from transceivers on the unmanned vehicles using the position of the aperture.
The limitation “a coordinate” has a scope that includes a single coordinate, and it is not clear how to interpret a single coordinate of a plurality of MRRs. There are plural unmanned vehicles, each with has an aperture having plural MRRs.
Also, it is not clear if this is ranging a coordinate of one of a plurality of MRRs within one unmanned vehicle or aperture, or ranging plural coordinates of plural MRRs within one unmanned vehicle or aperture, or ranging plural coordinates of plural MRRs in plural unmanned vehicles/apertures, or something else.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A computer implemented method of synchronizing a plurality of unmanned vehicles, comprising:
controlling transmission, from one or more base stations, of a laser beam to a plurality of apertures each comprising a plurality of modulated retroreflectors (MRRs), each of the apertures mounted to a different one a plurality of unmanned vehicles that are airborne or spaceborne;
performing a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the MRRs using a retroflection of the laser beam from the MRRs;
calculating a position of the aperture from the coordinate; and
timing data signals received or transmitted from transceivers on the unmanned vehicles using the position of the aperture.
The claim recites a plurality of apertures, and it is not clear which position of which aperture or unmanned vehicle is being referenced.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A computer implemented method of synchronizing a plurality of unmanned vehicles, comprising:
controlling transmission, from one or more base stations, of a laser beam to a plurality of apertures each comprising a plurality of modulated retroreflectors (MRRs), each of the apertures mounted to a different one a plurality of unmanned vehicles that are airborne or spaceborne;
performing a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the MRRs using a retroflection of the laser beam from the MRRs;
calculating a position of the aperture from the coordinate; and
timing data signals received or transmitted from transceivers on the unmanned vehicles using the position of the aperture.
It is not clear how to interpret calculating a position from the coordinate without measuring or otherwise obtaining the coordinate value. In particular, the claim recites performing a ranging measurement, but it does not calculate the coordinate. Furthermore, it is not clear how to calculate a position from only a ranging measurement. It seems that directional information is also required.
Claim 15 recites:
15. A device, comprising:
an optical aperture comprising a plurality of outwardly facing modulating retroreflectors (MRR) disposed at a same radius about a center point; wherein:
each of the MRRs comprises a plurality of reflectors coupled to a modulator, and
a number and arrangement of the reflectors is configured to enable positioning of the aperture from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using retroreflections of laser beams back to at least one base station after transmission from the at least one base station and when the aperture is attached to an airborne or spaceborne unmanned vehicle.
It is not clear how the last paragraph further limits the structure of the device. In other words, it is not clear what number and arrangement of reflectors are within the scope of the claim, and it is not clear how the reflectors are “configured” to achieve the desired results recited in the claim, or what particular configurations are within the scope of the claim and what particular configurations are not within the scope of the claim. In other words, the last paragraph recites desired results, rather than reciting the structure of the device.
Claim 15, line 7, recites “at least one base station”. This language is inferentially claimed within the functional language of the reflectors. It is not clear if the “at least one base station” is a required element (in which case the Examiner suggests affirmatively reciting it as an element of the claimed device) or if it is non-limiting intended use (in which case the Examiner suggests removing it to avoid confusion). The Examiner notes that the at least one base station is also in the functionality of claim 16.
Claim 16, last line, recites “transmissoin”. This appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 18 recites “isochedron”. The Examiner is not familiar with this term and the Examiner cannot find a definition for this term. Clarification is required.
Claim 2-13 and 16-20 are rejected because they depend from one or more of the claims rejected above and they fail to further limit the claim in a manner to overcome the rejections.
The scope of the claims is not clear, as discussed above in the 112(b) rejections. Nonetheless, in the interests of compact prosecution and to the extent the Examiner understands the claims, rejections are presented under 112(a) to assist Applicant in preparing the most complete response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Scope of Enablement
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a limited scope based on the teachings in the application, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope recited in the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
MPEP 2164.08 states: “The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that ‘the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Teachings of the Application and Scope of the Claims.
The application teaches that determining center position is difficult for the time synchronization algorithm, and that a new algorithm for doing so was developed:
[0047] Determining the center position of the MRR poses a significant challenge for the time synchronization algorithm as the geometric configuration of the MRR introduces variability in the calculated center position, as shown in FIG. 2E, thereby impacting the precision of the time synchronization algorithm. To determine the center position and orientation of the MRR more accurately, an algorithm was developed.
The algorithm operates with the MRRs in two states, an initial state and an alternate orientation. In the initial state, the algorithm calculates the average distance traveled by a signal in each reflector channel, determines the orientation of the midfaces (with the midface having a particular definition), and establishes a relationship between the midpoint of each face and the center position using a spherical coordinate system centered at the midpoint.
[0048] The algorithm begins by analyzing key characteristics of the MRR in its initial state. It calculates the average distance traveled by a signal within each reflector channel and determines the orientation of the midfaces. These midfaces are imaginary planes intersecting the midpoint of the exterior faces of three channels, where the modulator is situated. The algorithm establishes a relationship between the midpoint of each exterior face and the center position using a spherical coordinate system centered at the midpoint.
After this, the center position is determined with the MRR in an alternate orientation. In particular, the signals travel distance and the angle of the reflected signal is measured to determine the position of the modulator:
[0049] Upon determining these initial properties, the center position can then be determined when the MRR is in an alternate orientation. More specifically, quantum well modulators on the MRR modulate the signal transmitted from the ground stations, each of the MRRs imparting a unique modulation that allows identification of the channel it interacts with. By precisely measuring the signal's travel distance and the angle of the reflected signal, the algorithm can determine the position of the modulator.
After this, the orientation of a midface is determined by finding the position of three or more quantum well modulators and using these positions to calculate the pitch, yaw, and roll of the MRRs in the new orientation, and the center point is estimated using the initial relationship data and the MRR’s center position:
[0050] To find the orientation of a midface, the positions of three or more quantum well modulators are found. This information assists in calculating the pitch, yaw, and roll of the MRR in its new orientation. Once the rotation of the retroreflector is known, the algorithm estimates the center point's position using the initial relationship established between each quantum well modulator and the MRR's center position.
The application teaches an algorithm to determine the positions of the quantum well modulators:
[0051] To assess the algorithm's performance, a 2D simulation using MATLAB compares the error with and without the algorithm. In this simulation, the following equation is used to determine the position of the quantum well modulators:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0052] where {right arrow over (p.sub.i)} represents the estimated position of the quantum well modulator, {right arrow over (p.sub.g)} is the position of the laser ground station, d is the total distance the signal travels, r.sub.i is the average distance the signal travels in the i.sup.th MRR channel, and θ is the angle the signal is sent out at.
In summary, the application teaches to determine the position of the center point through the use of particular structures and particular steps/algorithm. In contrast, claim 1 broadly recites:
a computer programmed for:
calculating the position of the center point from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using the laser beam, and
timing the signal using the position of the center point.
This has a scope that calculates the position of the center point and timing the signal with no more than a ranging measurement, and without limiting the claim to any particular algorithm or calculation. The Examiner cannot find any teachings in the application to support the full scope of the claim.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A computer implemented method of synchronizing a plurality of unmanned vehicles, comprising:
controlling transmission, from one or more base stations, of a laser beam to a plurality of apertures each comprising a plurality of modulated retroreflectors (MRRs), each of the apertures mounted to a different one a plurality of unmanned vehicles that are airborne or spaceborne;
performing a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the MRRs using a retroflection of the laser beam from the MRRs;
calculating a position of the aperture from the coordinate; and
timing data signals received or transmitted from transceivers on the unmanned vehicles using the position of the aperture.
This has a broad scope that calculates the position of the aperture and timing the signals with no more than a ranging measurement, and without limiting the claim to any particular algorithm or calculation. The Examiner cannot find any teachings in the application to support the full scope of the claim.
Claim 15 appears to focus on the retroreflectors on the drones. The application discusses different and particular designs for the apertures and retroreflectors:
[0058] The consistency of reflecting a signal to the laser ground station was analyzed for different retroreflector geometric designs. The analysis uses MATLAB code to place multiple laser ground stations around the retroreflector. For each station position, the program finds that channels of the retroreflector are able to reflect a signal toward the position it was emitted from. In each of the FIGS. 6A-6E, the optical aperture shape (octahedron 600, 604, 608 or icosahedron 612, 616) with facets is shown on the left side of the figure with the corresponding coverage (602, 606, 610, 614, 618) shown on the right hand side of the figure.
The application states that several designs have poor performance:
[0059] The first design is based on an octahedron 600 (FIG. 6A), an 8-faced polyhedron. The plot illustrating the coverage projected onto a spherical surface 602 reveals poor performance. Simulations show that, approximately 20% of the time, one face can reflect a ray, while the remaining 80% of the time, no faces are able to reflect a signal toward the ground station.
This particular design is illustrated in FIG. 6A.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Improved designs are discussed.
[0060] The subsequent design retains the octahedron shape with each face subdivided and smoothed to resemble a sphere, resulting in a 32-sided spheroid 604 (FIG. 6B). The coverage 606 significantly improves, with only 30% of instances having no faces capable of reflecting a ray. In 50% of cases, one or two faces could reflect a ray, and in the remaining 20%, three or more faces were effectively able to reflect a ray toward the laser ground station. The subsequent design 608 comprises further subdivision of the facets, as shown in FIG. 6C, resulting in exponential improvement of the coverage 610. In this case, every position on the surface had at least three faces capable of reflecting a ray. However, the analysis of this retroreflector shows that there were still regions where coverage was poor (specifically along the XY, XZ, and YZ planes).
These particular designs are illustrated in FIGS. 6B and 6C.
PNG
media_image3.png
444
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
432
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
What appears to be the best embodiments is discussed:
[0061] FIG. 6D illustrates a design based on an icosahedron 612. This design has better coverage 614 than the initial octahedral design, but the simulation shows there are still regions where no channels were able to reflect a ray toward the laser ground station. Subsequently, we simulated the effect of subdividing the icosahedron 616 (FIG. 6E), increasing the number of faces. This design shows promising results, ensuring that every position had three or more reflected rays. It has fewer faces than the doublesubdivided octahedron but offers more consistent coverage 618.
This particular design is illustrated in FIG. 6D.
PNG
media_image5.png
434
848
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
390
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In other words, the application teaches that not all aperture and retroreflector designs will work. Furthermore, not even all designs of a particular geometric shape will perform similarly. For example, notably different results were achieved between octahedron and icosahedron shapes, and different design variations in each of these produced notably different results. As a result, the application teaches particular designs for the apertures and retroreflectors in order to achieve particular desired results.
Claim 15 recites:
15. A device, comprising:
an optical aperture comprising a plurality of outwardly facing modulating retroreflectors (MRR) disposed at a same radius about a center point; wherein:
each of the MRRs comprises a plurality of reflectors coupled to a modulator, and
a number and arrangement of the reflectors is configured to enable positioning of the aperture from a ranging measurement of a coordinate of the modulator using retroreflections of laser beams back to at least one base station after transmission from the at least one base station and when the aperture is attached to an airborne or spaceborne unmanned vehicle.
This has a broad scope and is not limited to any particular structure for the number and arrangement of the aperture and reflectors in order to “enable positioning of the aperture from a ranging measurement ...”. This has a scope that includes, for example, enabling positioning using a retroreflector producing three or more reflected rays in every position. The application teaches such a result with the retroreflector of FIG. 6E, but the claim has a broad scope that includes any “number and arrangement” or reflector that produces those results, even a number and arrangement of reflectors that are novel and non-obvious from the teachings in the application. The Examiner cannot find any teachings in the application to support the full scope of the claim.
Similarly, claim 16 recites:
16. The device of claim 15, wherein
the number and the arrangement of the reflectors such that a view factor, defined as fraction of time any of the MRRs of the vehicle retroreflects the laser beams back to the at least one base station, is at least 50% or
the number and the arrangement of the retroreflectors are such that a data rate of the transmissoin is at least 3 Mbps per square centimeter of each of the unmanned vehicles.
This claim broadly recites a desired result, but does not recite the structure to achieve that result. Although the application teaches several particular designs with particular characteristics, the application does not appear to teach all possible designs that will achieve the desired results recited in the claim.
Claims 17 and 18 broadly recite geometric shapes, or a “section thereof”, or “subdivisions thereof”, while the application teaches the use of very particular designs to achieve the desired results. The Examiner cannot find any teachings in the application to support the full scope of the claim.
The remaining dependent claims add additional limitations but fail to address the issues raised with regard to the claims discussed above. As a result, the dependent claims also have a scope that is not supported by the teachings of the present application.
The Claims do not Recite the Particular Structure, Materials, or Steps.
As discussed above, the application teaches how to make and use the invention using particular structure, materials, and steps. As also discussed above, the claims recite the desired functionality/results, but do not recite the particular structure, materials, or steps that accomplish the claimed functionality/results in accordance with the teachings of the application. This results in claims having a scope that is much broader than the teachings of the application.
When considering the teachings of the application and the scope of the claims, as discussed above, see MPEP 2173.05(g), 4th paragraph:
… Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. …
This supports a finding that the broad scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings in the disclosure.
No Teaching of a General Case for the Full Scope of the Claims.
The Examiner also notes that there is no teaching of an apparatus/method with the broad scope recited in the claims. If such a general case were contemplated or discovered by the inventors, its disclosure and a description of its operation would be expected as part of the application in order to support broad claims, such as claims 1, 14, and 15. This is particularly true because, as discussed above, the embodiments that are disclosed in the application require fairly complex and particular structures and algorithms. These particular structures and algorithms would be unnecessary if a general case had been known by the inventors, and yet the application does not include a disclosure of a general case. This supports a conclusion that the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the teachings of the application.
Other Considerations.
The nature of the invention is optical transmission and reception apparatuses and methods. The components used in the various embodiments were known to one of ordinary skill. For example, one or ordinary skill would be familiar with components such as lasers, retroreflectors, drones, optical transmitters, optical receivers, optical transceivers, optical modulators, and signal processors/computers in the context of the invention. Therefore, no teachings of how to make these individual components is required.
The application teaches how to arrange these elements with other elements in particular combinations in order to achieve the desired results (see the discussion above), but these combinations are particular and complex. Nonetheless, the Examiner is of the opinion that one or ordinary skill would know how to make and use the disclosed embodiments of the invention from the teachings of the application.
In addition, one of ordinary skill would know how to perform other tasks in the present technological area and related to the invention, such as providing power to components (although power supplies and power specifications are not explicitly taught in the application), and splicing/coupling the electrical and optical components together (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and managing the temperature of electrical and optical components which are susceptible to performance degradation and undesirable operational variations based on temperature (although this is not explicitly taught in the application), and shielding components from EM interference that can be generated by such devices (although this is not explicitly taught). Although this is not an exhaustive list, the obvious modifications based on the disclosure and the knowledge of one or ordinary skill are nonetheless of a limited scope.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious that some elements may be modified or replaced with other elements known to have the same or similar functionality, and to make some modifications to the particular structures disclosed.
However, these modifications do not address the issues raised above regarding the disparity between the scope of the claims and the teachings of the application.
Experimentation.
The claims are broad and include many possible structures and operations/algorithms, and the application does not teach the full scope of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner can find nothing in the application to support a conclusion that all possible structures or algorithms within the scope of the claims will produce the claimed results or functions. As a result, if one of ordinary skill were to attempt to make and use the full scope of the claims, it would require making, testing, or otherwise evaluating all (or at least a very large number of) possible combination of structures, operations, or algorithms within the scope of the claims to find what works to perform the claimed functionality. This results in a practically unlimited number of embodiments that would need to be made, tested, or otherwise evaluated to determine which embodiments within the scope of the claims are operative and which are inoperative. In other words, it would require almost infinite experimentation in order to make and use the full scope of the claims.
This supports a finding that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Conclusion.
After careful consideration the Examiner has concluded that the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the specification fails to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0013020 (GUETTA) at FIG. 1A illustrates a base station 100 and a drone 110.
PNG
media_image7.png
398
526
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The base station 100 includes an optical transmitter 108, optical receiver 103, and controller 107, and the drone 110 includes a retroreflector 112. This teaches to use a laser rangefinder between the base station 100 and the drone 110 using encoded optical signals and the retroreflector 112. See:
[0060] The range of the drone may be determined using a laser rangefinder. This may be accomplished by using the encoded optical transmission signals received at the drone 101 from the guidance system 100, and retransmitting a response signal back for detection at the guidance system. Any delay in generating and sending a returned transmission beam should be taken into account in calculating the range. However, this procedure may use part of the drone controller's computing resources. Therefore, according to an alternative implementation, the drone 101 may be equipped with a retroreflector 112, which reflects an optical encoded beam transmitted by the guidance system 100, and a laser rangefinder application in the guidance system can determine the range of the drone without the need to use the drone's optical transceiver capabilities. The guidance system 100 may send out pulses of encoded light 106A, as optical search signals, throughout the flight of the drone 101, at predefined regular intervals. The laser range finder has a rapid sampling rate, such that it takes measurements multiple times a second. In this manner, the range of the drone may be essentially continually measured to a high degree of precision.
US 2023/0010931 (Loti) at FIG. 1 illustrates a system using a base station 2 and a drone 3 using optical signals to
PNG
media_image8.png
490
444
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The base station transmits optical signals for distance measuring 21, tracking 22, and data 23, and the drone includes a retroreflector 7. See:
[0050] Further, the UAV 3 has a reflector with retroreflective characteristics provided on a lower surface thereof as an object to be measured. As the reflector, an omnidirectional prism 7 is preferably used. A relationship between an optical reference position of the prism 7 and an optical reference position of the camera 6 is fixed, and a positional relationship is known. Further, a reference optical axis of the prism 7 is parallel to an image pickup optical axis of the camera 6.
FIG. 2 illustrates an optical communication system with a drone.
PNG
media_image9.png
382
526
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The base station includes a controller 11, a distance measuring module 13, tracking module 14, and data transmitting module 15, and an angle measuring module 16. See:
[0053] The distance measuring module 13 functions as an electronic distance meter, projects a distance measuring light 21 toward the object to be measured, receives the distance measuring light 21 reflected on the object to be measured and measures a distance to the object to be measured based on a time difference between a projection timing and a photodetection timing and on a light velocity. Further, the distance measuring module 13 is controlled by the TS-arithmetic control module 11, and a measurement result obtained by the distance measuring module 13 is input to the TS-arithmetic control module 11. It is to be noted that, as the distance measuring light 21, a pulsed light is used.
[0055] The tracking module 14 has an optical axis (tracking optical axis) which is parallel or approximately parallel to an optical axis (distance measuring optical axis) of the distance measuring module 13 and irradiates a tracking light 22 to an object to be tracked (that is, the object to be measured) at a timing which is the same as or approximately the same as a timing of irradiating the distance measuring light 21. It is to be noted that, as the tracking light 22, a pulsed light is used.
[0056] Further, the tracking module 14 has a photodetection module (not shown) for receiving the tracking light 22 reflected on the object to be tracked. The photodetection module has a tracking photodetection shutter (not shown) which restricts or inhibits a photodetection of the reflected tracking light. Further, as to the photodetection module, a deviation of the photodetection module from a reference position is obtained based on a position of the reflected tracking light on the photodetection module, and a photodetection result of the photodetection module is input to the TS-arithmetic control module 11, and the TS-arithmetic control module 11 controls a vertical angle and a horizontal angle of the telescope module 5 so that the photodetection position coincides with the reference position.
[0061] The angle measuring module 16 has a vertical angle detector 18 and a horizontal angle detector 19, and detects a sighting direction of the telescope module 5, that is, a vertical angle and a horizontal angle of the distance measuring optical axis. It is to be noted that a synthesized angle of the vertical angle and the horizontal angle will be referred to as a directional angle, which indicates a direction of the distance measuring optical axis.
[0062] The vertical angle and the horizontal angle are input to the TS-arithmetic control module 11, and the TS-arithmetic control module 11 determines three-dimensional coordinates of the object to be measured or a measuring point based on the vertical angle, the horizontal angle and on a distance measurement result of the distance measuring module 13.
FIG. 2 also illustrates a prism reflector 7 that is a retroreflector. See:
[0075] The prism module 35 has a prism 7 which retro-reflecting an incoming light and photodetection elements 37 provided on a reflecting surface of the prism 7. The prism 7 has a plurality of reflecting surfaces, and the incoming light is usually several times reflected on the plurality of reflecting surfaces. In an illustrated example, a state where the incoming light is reflected on two reflecting surfaces twice and retro-reflected. Further, in the illustrated example, partially transmissive reflective films 38 are formed on the two reflecting surfaces respectively, and the photodetection elements 37 are provided on the respective reflecting surfaces. The reflective films 38 have optical characteristics to reflect a large part of the incoming light and to transmit a very small part of the incoming light and, for instance, with respect to a tracking light, the reflective films 38 have optical characteristics to transmit 10% of the incoming tracking light and to reflect 90% of the incoming tracking light. Further, with respect to a measuring light, the reflective films 38 have characteristics to reflect 100% of the distance measuring light and characteristics to transmit 10% of a TS-data transmitting light 23.
US 2009/0073536 (Goetz) teaches that modulating retroreflectors were known. See:
[0007] Modulating retroreflectors were demonstrated before the invention of the laser, but were restricted to short distances and low data rates. The first known description of a modulating retroreflector for free-space optical communication is in Harry Stockman, "Communications by Means of Reflected Power," Proceedings of the IRE, pp. 1196-1204, October 1948. Recent advances in optoelectronic devices and free-space optics have greatly increased the capabilities of MRR systems. Examples are discussed in "Peter G. Goetz, William S. Rabinovich, Rita Mahon, Mike S. Ferraro, James L. Murphy, H. Ray Burris, Mena F. Stell, Chris I. Moore, Michelle R. Suite, Wade Freeman, G. C. Gilbreath, and Steven C. Binari, "Modulating Retro-Reflector Devices and Current Link Performance at the Naval Research Laboratory," MILCOM 2007, Orlando, Fla., October 2007."
[0008] There are two basic classes of retro-reflectors, "cat's eye" and corner cube retro-reflectors. "Cat's eye" retro-reflectors combine lenses and/or mirrors and incorporate an optical focus. Several variations of cat's eye retro-reflectors are described in in Mark L. Biermann, et al, "Design and analysis of a diffraction-limited cat's-eye retroreflector," Opt. Eng. 41, 1655 (2002).
[0009] Corner cube retro-reflectors (CCRs) are nonfocusing. Tradeoffs between modulating retro-reflectors of the corner cube type and the cat's eye type are discussed in "Peter G. Goetz, William S. Rabinovich, Rita Mahon, Lee Swingen, G. Charmaine Gilbreath, and James Murphy, "Practical Considerations of Retroreflector Choice in Modulating Retroreflector Systems," IEEE LEOS 2005 Summer Topicals, talk TuA3.5, San Diego, Calif., 25-27 Jul. 2005.
FIG. 1 illustrates one embodiment of a modulating retroreflector.
PNG
media_image10.png
360
600
media_image10.png
Greyscale
See:
[0024] Cat's eye modulating retroreflectors allow increased data rates and ranges compared to corner cube-based modulating retroreflectors, however they are more complex. The use of focusing optics in cat's eye retro-reflectors enables them to have large optical apertures with small, and thus fast, modulators. However, the location of the focal point on the mirror depends on the angle of incidence. Modulators are typically placed at or very near the focal surface. As can be seen in FIG. 1, the angle of incidence determines the location of the focused spot on the modulator 20. Large area devices provide a large field of view (FOV), but only a small spot on the retroreflector's modulator 20 is illuminated at any one time. For example, the illuminated spot can have a diameter of about ten to a few hundred microns.
US 2007/0024777 (Sawayama) teaches that it was known for a retroreflector to include plural reflective surfaces. See:
[0007] To enhance the display performance of reflective color liquid crystal display devices, a reflective liquid crystal display device using a retroreflector (which will be referred to herein as a "retroreflective liquid crystal display device") was proposed in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Publication No. 2003-195788 and Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Publication No. 2003-255373, which were filed by the applicant of the present application. A "retroreflector" is an element for reflecting an incoming light ray by a plurality of reflective surfaces back toward its source, no matter where the light ray has come from. And the retroreflector has a structure in which very small unit structures are arranged two-dimensionally, e.g., an array of microspheres, an array of microlenses, and an array of corner cubes.
US 2005/0275773 (Fujiwara) at FIG. 1A illustrates a retro-reflector including plural reflective surfaces 105.
PNG
media_image11.png
224
512
media_image11.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0005] In order to further improve the display performance of a reflection-type LCD, a retroreflection-type LCD which includes a retroreflection plate as a reflective layer for reflecting ambient light is proposed. As used herein, a "retroreflection plate" is an optical element which reflects an incoming ray of light with a plurality of reflection surfaces, regardless of the orientation of the ray, in the direction in which the ray entered the device. For example, a retroreflection plate is composed of a two-dimensional array of minute unit features.
[0008] As shown in FIG. 1A, the retroreflection-type LCD comprises: a front substrate 110 on which color filters 119, a transparent counter electrode 111, and an alignment film 112 are provided; a rear substrate 109 provided so as to oppose the front substrate 110; and a liquid crystal layer 113 interposed between the substrates 110 and 109. The rear substrate 109 includes: a TFT substrate 101 having a plurality of switching elements (TFTs) formed thereon; an insulating layer 102 which is provided on the TFT substrate 101 and has a surface configuration that exhibits a retroreflection property; a plurality of reflection electrodes 105; and an alignment layer 118. The reflection electrodes 105, which are formed on the insulating layer 102, present an uneven surface corresponding to the surface configuration of the insulating layer 102. As shown in FIG. 1B, the reflection electrodes 105 are formed so as to be spaced apart from one another, corresponding to pixels (which define units of image displaying). Each reflection electrode 105 is connected to a drain electrode 103 of a corresponding switching element on the TFT substrate 101, via a contact hole 104 which is formed in the insulating layer 102. The alignment layer 118, which is formed above the insulating layer 102 and the reflection electrodes 105, has protrusions and depressions corresponding to the surface configuration of the insulating layer 102. The liquid crystal layer 113 may be composed of, for example, a scattering type liquid crystal material which is capable of switching between a light transmitting state and a light scattering state (forward scattering) in accordance with a varying voltage which is applied between the counter electrode 111 and each reflection electrode 105.
US 2004/0194653 (Taffinder) at FIG. 5 illustrates a retro-reflector 35 including plural glass bead reflectors 21.
PNG
media_image12.png
130
494
media_image12.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0083] Referring to FIG. 5, a sectional view of a plate 40 made according to the above-described method is shown. The substrate 20 is a moulded length of plastics material, such as ABS, which has a plurality of reflective glass beads 21 retained therein which provide the retro-reflective surface 22. Adhered to the substrate 20 is a transparent plastics film 2, having indicia 43 printed thereon.
US 2010/0265585 (Kim) at FIG. 36 illustrates a retro-reflector 35 including plural reflectors 36.
PNG
media_image13.png
350
362
media_image13.png
Greyscale
See also:
[0086] As can be known in this changed embodiment, the retroreflective element 35 of the retroreflective article 3 according to the third embodiment of the present invention may be formed so that a plurality of reflecting corners 36 are densely arranged in parallel on the bottom portion of the front and rear vertical reflecting surfaces 37 and 38.
US 2025/0052677 (Cooper) at FIG. 3 illustrates a system using a laser source 310 and plural drones, each with a retroreflector.
PNG
media_image14.png
812
824
media_image14.png
Greyscale
See:
[0061] FIG. 3 depicts a system and method 300 for sensing gas emission using a retroreflector mounted on a mobile platform for enhanced coverage of gas emission. With reference to FIG. 3, the system and method 300 may comprise an open path laser sensor 310 and one or more mobile platforms 322, 324, 326 each equipped with a retroreflector. The industrial facilities in a monitored area 302 may be in various layouts, including at least one of vertical multi-deck layout, horizontal layout, and a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the industrial facilities in the monitored area 302 may be offshore facilities where oil and gas operations are performed. The open path laser sensor 310 may be mounted on any point 304 of the industrial facilities in the monitored area 302. For example, the open path laser sensor 310 may be mounted on a roof or a high point 304 but is not limited thereto. Meanwhile, the retroreflectors may be mounted on any type of mobile platform. The retroreflectors may be mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 322, 324, 326 such as drones but are not limited thereto.
[0062] The open path laser sensor 310 may be configured to transmit laser beam and detect, localize, and quantify gas emission using the received laser beam returned from the retroreflectors on the UAVs 322, 324, 326. In some embodiments, the open path laser sensor 310 may be a laser dispersion spectroscopy methane sensor but is not limited thereto. Each of the UAVs 322, 324, 326 with the retroreflectors may be configured to fly around the industrial facilities, and each of the retroreflectors on the UAVs 322, 324, 326 may reflect the laser beams transmitted from the open path laser sensor 310. The open path laser sensor 310 may be provided expanded coverage by flying the UAVs 322, 324, 326 with the retroreflectors to gain access to a broader area in and around platforms or in and around more complex industrial facilities. The retroreflectors on the UAVs 322, 324, 326 may be configured to reflect the laser beams from any positions during the flight. This may clearly give the potential to cover areas where it would not be feasible to put the fixed retroreflectors and can also enable more precise localization in areas that may have been blocked from the original path of the laser beam. In some embodiments, more than one retroreflector equipped UAVs may be deployed, given the 360 degree coverage of the device for enhanced coverage.
In other words, it was known to use plural drones, each with a retroreflector, in a system using optical beams between a base station and the drones.
US 2017/0059398 (Tennant) teaches that a variety of retroreflector structures were known, including retroreflectors as octahedrons and icosahedrons. See:
[0048] Instead of or in addition to utilizing smooth retro-reflective surfaces for the retro-reflector shields discussed above, retro-reflective corner cube structures can be utilized. The retro-reflecting corner cube surfaces cover the facets of a hollow partial polyhedron placed over the first area and the at least one additional area except for a portion of the first area that is positioned to receive the infrared radiation from the infrared radiation source or the proximate scene. The specular retro-reflecting corner cube surfaces are arranged to return to the first area substantially only light emitted or reflected from the first area and a part of the at least one additional area and not from any other region within the specular retro-reflector shield. The retro-reflector shield may include corner reflectors populating the facets of halved polyhedra such as an octahedron or an icosahedron. The retro-reflector shield may include corner reflectors populating the facets of any convex polyhedral structure whose facets are either equilateral triangles or hexagons or a mix thereof. The structure/configuration of retro-reflective surfaces can be optimized using ray-trace analysis with known ray tracing software.
US 2006/0087735 (Nilsen) teaches that it was known to make retroreflectors as octahedrons. See:
[0020] In further embodiments, an octahedron retroreflector is provided that includes eight truncated solid cube-corner prisms. The prisms can be formed and then folded into the octahedron retroreflector. A specular or reflective coating can be provided on facets of the prisms. In specific embodiments, the retroreflector includes metal or polymer and is formed by progressive die processes, thermoforming processes, stepped-casting processes, compression, compression injection, and/or injection micro-molding processes. A coating can be disposed on facets of the prisms that is configured to reflect a first predetermined wavelength or range of wavelengths of light while allowing a second predetermined wavelength or range of wavelengths to pass therethrough. Differential height locators can be provided on facets of the prisms to provide an air-backed octahedron retroreflector when formed. The retroreflector can be enclosed within a hollow or solid structure.
[0021] In other embodiments, an octahedron retroreflector is provided that includes full open-faced prism surfaces. A specular or reflective coating can be provided on the surfaces. The retroreflector can be enclosed within a hollow or solid structure.
See also FIG. 44.
PNG
media_image15.png
204
220
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN WOLF whose telephone number is (571)270-3378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:00 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, KENNETH N. VANDERPUYE can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/DARREN E WOLF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights