DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kremer, WO 2011139306.
Kremer disclose an apparatus and methods for aimpoint correction comprising: a laser transmitter 612 adapted to illuminate a target with a laser through an atmosphere (at a distance T, Fig. 1); a receiver 604 comprising a single photodiode 652 (par.0083) and adapted to analyze a return path of the laser through the atmosphere, the receiver 604 receiving modulated scattered laser radiation due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere; and the device adapted to compare intensities of the received modulated scattered laser radiation from the receiver and measures a crosswind profile along a path to the target (see par. 0083-0084). (See Fig. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising another receiver spaced apart from the receiver at a particular distance (see par. 0089).
Regarding 3, wherein the single photodiode is coupled with optics (optic 604; par. 0084).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the optics further comprise micro optics coupled with diaphragms that selectively permit illumination of different parts of the single photodiode (see par. 0083).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the single photodiode is a quadrant photodetector (the prior art teaches that any suitable type of detector can be used, par. 0083).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the receiver further comprises collection optics used to optically filter or isolate, using at least one of polarization or diffraction techniques, the modulated scattered laser radiation in the atmosphere (see par. 0083-0084).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the laser transmitter is one of a light emitting diode (LED), a super-luminescent diode (SLED), a liquid laser, a gas laser, or a solid laser (Pulse laser can be considered as a solid-state laser).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the laser transmitter is adapted to emit a laser of differing power, frequency, or optical property (Pulse lasers emit lights in short busts that can generate high peak power).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: a memory configured to hold the extracted crosswind profile; and a processor interoperably coupled to the memory and configured to calculate a ballistic solution using the extracted crosswind profile (see par. 0082-0084).
Regarding claim 10, further comprising the processor configured to initiate transmission of data associated with the ballistic solution to a sighting device (see par. 00110, including aimpoint corrector).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapira et al, US Patent No. 7,739,823.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Shapira et al disclose a fire control system using a laser identification, detection and ranging (LIDAR) unit comprising: a Fire Control System (FCS) having an LIDAR unit 20 and a night-and-day sight unit 22; the LIDAR 20 comprises an eye safe laser 1, which may transmit short pulses at a 1 KHz rep-rate, and which may include transmitter optics for beam collimating a beam which is transmitted to a target 10; a collecting lens 2 may be provided with a wide bandpass, which is adapted to receive beams returning from the target 10; the collecting lens 2 may be correlated to the night-and-day sight unit 22 as well as to the wavelength of the laser; a dichroic beam splitter 3 with a narrow band pass (which may be adapted to the wavelength of the laser) may send the beam to the night-and-day sight unit 22 for processing; a multi-element receiver 4 may be positioned at the focal plane of the collecting lens 2; the LIDAR unit 20 for use with the laser 1 and the multi-element receiver 4 may include, without limitation, preamplifiers 5, peak detectors 6 and power supply and electronics unit 7; the night-and-day sight unit 22 may include a processor apparatus with processing capability for carrying out the processing and calculations described in the specification (see fig.1, col. 2, line 32+).
Shapira et al disclose a fire control system using a laser identification detection and ranging unit comprising: a laser transmitter 1 adapted to illuminate a target 10 with a laser through an atmosphere (fig. 1); a receiver 4 comprising photodiode elements (col 2, line 51+} and adapted to analyze a return path of the laser through the atmosphere, the receiver receiving modulated scattered laser radiation due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere; and the device adapted to compare intensities of the received modulated scattered laser radiation from the receiver and measure a crosswind profile along a path to the target (once the returned signal is compared with original input signal the crosswind profile can be determined). Shapira et al disclose that a linear InGaAas PIN or APD photodiode array, but fail to disclose measuring the cross-wind movement profile based on spacing between and the size of each receiver. However, the position of each receiver and the size of each receiver is crucial in order to take readings at different heights or angles as the conditions change dues environmental conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made to employ appropriate receiver sizes and be positioned at strategic location in order to obtain more accurate readings, such as effectively measuring the amplitude and phase difference of the of the signals. Such modification would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art. With respect to the details of measuring the crosswind, such the specific micro optic, the type of photodetectors, the specific type of LEDs, the specific medium or emitter, the operational frequency power, etc. However, these limitations are either functionally equivalent to the prior art or just merely specific engineering choice for meeting specific customer requirements. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Shapira et al to include a quadrant photodetector for detecting the return signals or using the claimed LEDs as alternate means to illuminate the target object. These limitations are functionally equivalent as in the prior art, which would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 12, Shapira et al do not a liquid or gas medium. However, the specific medium is just merely a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ the teachings of Shapira et al to measure the cross-wind profile in a liquid or gas profile.
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a radiation emitter (a laser identification, detection and ranging).
Regarding claim 14, further comprising: a memory configured to hold the measured cross-movement profile within the medium; and a processor interoperably coupled to the memory and configured to calculate a ballistic solution using the measured cross-movement profile within the medium (see fig.1, col. 2, line 32+).
Regarding claims 15-20, since the structural limitations are as recited above, the method steps are obtained, and therefore, obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,352,861 (hereinafter ‘861 Patent) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claimed invention is a broader recitation of the ‘861 Patent. For instance, in claim 1 of the current applicant and in the ‘861 Patent the applicant claims:
Application: No. 19/240,130
Patent No. 12,352,861
A device for optically measuring crosswind, comprising: a laser transmitter adapted to illuminate a target with a laser through an atmosphere; a receiver comprising a single photodiode and adapted to analyze a return path of the laser through the atmosphere, the receiver receiving modulated scattered laser radiation due to temperature gradients in the atmosphere; and the device adapted to compare intensities of the received modulated scattered laser radiation from the receiver and measures a crosswind profile along a path to the target.
A device for optically measuring crosswind for wind turbine rotor adjustment, comprising: a single physical photodiode representing a single pixel and adapted to analyze electromagnetic radiation traveling between the single physical photodiode and a target, wherein the single physical photodiode is mounted to a wind turbine, wherein the single physical photodiode is subdivided into a plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions, wherein each sub-pixel detection portion of the plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions simulates a separate physical photodetector, wherein each distinct sub-pixel detection portion of the plurality of distinct sub-pixel detection portions receives a scintillation pattern created by atmospheric eddies diffracting and refracting the electromagnetic radiation, and wherein, for each distinct sub-pixel detection portion, converting the scintillation pattern into a single data point measuring cumulative light intensity; and the device adapted to compare cumulative light intensities from each distinct sub-pixel detection portion and to generate, as a generated crosswind profile, a crosswind profile between the single physical photodiode and the target.
Thus, in respect to above discussions, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of claims 1-20 of the ‘861 Patent as a general teaching for measuring crosswind, to perform the same function as claimed in the present invention. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of the ‘861 Patent. The extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to claimed invention of ‘861 Patent [species], In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a co-pending application.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is a judicially established doctrine based upon public policy and is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from the claims in a first paten. IN re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. & 1.321(b) would overcome an actual or provisional rejection on this ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 C>FR> &1.78(d).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 8:00-8:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Lee can be reached on 571-272-2398. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
DS
/DANIEL ST CYR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876bristafford3+