Ex Parte Flanders

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 4, 2019

13852769 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/852,769 03/28/2013 25263 7590 06/06/2019 HoustonHogle LLP 1666 Massachusetts A venue Suite 12 LEXINGTON, MA 02420 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dale C. Flanders UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0005.l 181US3 1086 EXAMINER LAP AGE, MICHAEL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2886 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/06/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): GRANT.HOUSTON@HOUSTONLLP.COM docketing@houstonllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DALE C. FLANDERS Appeal2017-008924 1 Application 13/852,769 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This decides an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant and the real party in interest is Axsun Technologies LLC. (App. Br. 1.) 2 The rejection of claim 2 and 9 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 2). Appeal2017-008924 Application 13/852,769 Appellant's invention is directed generally to an optical coherence analysis system that uses a reference wave and an experimental sample wave to measure distances, thicknesses, and calculate indices of refraction of a sample. (Spec. ,r 3.) Of the currently rejected claims, claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. See Claim Appendix. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the Appeal Brief below: 1. An optical coherence system, comprising: a hermetic package; an optical bench installed within the hermetic package; a swept source installed on the optical bench within the hermetic package and configured to generate a tunable source optical signal; an interferometer splitter installed on the bench within the hermetic package and configured to split the source optical signal between a sample arm and a reference arm; and an optical detector system comprising: a first pair of optical detectors installed on the bench within the hermetic package for detecting a first polarization from the sample; a second pair of optical detectors installed on the bench within the hermetic package for detecting a second polarization from the sample; a first interference splitter/combiner installed on the bench within the hermetic package for generating interference signals of the first polarization from the source optical signal returning 2 Appeal2017-008924 Application 13/852,769 from the sample and the source optical signal returning from the reference arm, the interference signals to be detected by the first pair of optical detectors; a second interference splitter/combiner installed on the bench within the hermetic package for generating interference signals of the second polarization from the source optical signal returning from the sample and the source optical signal from the reference arm, the interference signals to be detected by the second pair of optical detectors; and an electronic amplifier system installed on the optical bench within the hermetic package, the electronic amplifier system comprises a first electronic amplifier for amplifying the output of the first pair of the optical detectors and a second electronic amplifier for amplifying the output of the second pair of the optical detectors. The following rejection is presented for our review: Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15 are rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Motaghiannezam et al. (US 2008/0297806 Al, published Dec. 4, 2008, hereinafter "Motaghiannezam") in view of Johnson et al. (US 2009/0284749 Al, published Nov. 19, 2009, hereinafter "Johnson") further in view of Chen et al. (US 7,627,203 B2, issued Dec. 1, 2009, hereinafter "Chen"). 3 The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appears in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2-9.) 3 The Examiner has inadvertently included cancelled claim 6 in the statement of the rejection. (Final Act. 2). 3 Appeal2017-008924 Application 13/852,769 OPINION The dispositive issues on appeal are: 4 Did the Examiner err in determining that Motaghiannezam describes a system having a first and second interference splitter/combiner as required by independent claims 1 and 8? Did the Examiner err in determining that Motaghiannezam describes an optical coherence analysis method comprising combining the returning sample arm optical signal with a reference arm optical signal and splitting first and second polarization interference signals between pairs of optical detectors as required by independent claims 15? Addressing independent claims 1, 8 and 15, the Examiner found, inter alia, Motaghiannezam describes an optical coherence analysis system comprising a first interference splitter/combiner (280) and a second interference splitter/combiner (290) for generating interference signals of the first and second polarization respectively. (Final Act. 2--4). Appellant argues Motaghiannezam system does not have a first and second interference splitter/combiner as required by the claimed invention in independent claims 1 and 8. Appellant specifically states: Motaghiannezam system has no first interference splitter/combiner or second interference splitter/combiner. These claimed splitter/combiners combine the optical signals from the reference arm and the sample and generate interference signals from the respective polarizations. In 4 A discussion of Johnson and Chen is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. The Examiner cited Johnson ( teaching an optical bench) and Chen ( teaching an hermetic package) to addressed other limitations of the claimed invention. (Final Act. 3-5). 4 Appeal2017-008924 Application 13/852,769 contradistinction, the Motaghiannezam system generates the interference signals in the input coupler 250 and then later separates the polarizations in the subsequent polarization splitters 280 and 290. (App. Br. 4--5.) The claimed invention requires first and second splitter/combiners that combine the optical signals from a reference arm and a sample and generate interference signals from the respective polarizations. The Examiner acknowledges Motaghiannezam does not describe polarization splitters 280 and 290 as receiving signals and combining the optical signals from ( 1) the reference arm and (2) the sample and subsequently generating interference signals from the respective polarizations as required by the claimed invention. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner attempts to explain that the signals departing splitters 280 and 290 are the same as the claimed invention. (Id.) The Examiner's position is not persuasive. The Examiner's analysis does not account for the claim requiring the combining of sample arm optical signal with a reference arm optical signal that are subsequently split by first and second interference splitter/combiner. Motaghiannezam generates the interference signals in input coupler 250 and then later separates the polarizations in subsequent polarization splitters 280 and 290. Motaghiannezam specifically states: The combined sample arm light and reference arms light at the first port 250c and 250d of the output coupler 250 are directed to polarization controllers 260 and 270 and polarization beam splitter 280 and 290, respectively. By adjusting the polarization controllers 240i, the polarization states of shifted light become parallel to each other at the input ports of polarization beam splitters 280 and 290. By adjusting the 5 Appeal2017-008924 Application 13/852,769 polarization controllers 260 and 270, The power of the output coupler 250 correspond to the Nth reference arm power equally splits between the first and second ports 280a, 280b, 290a, and 290b of the output polarization beam splitters 280 and 290. (Motaghiannezam ,r 37). The Examiner relies on the same teachings from Motaghiannezam to address independent claim 15. The disclosure from Motaghiannezam identified by the Examiner does not teach an optical coherence analysis method comprising combining the returning sample arm optical signal with a reference arm optical signal and splitting first and second polarization interference signals between pairs of optical detectors as required by the independent claims 15. (See Final Act. and Ans.). For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. We, likewise, do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject dependent claims 3-5, 7, and 10-14, because the rejection of these claims is premised on the Examiner's reliance on Motaghiannezam. Accordingly, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15 for the reasons given above. DECISION The Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15 is reversed. REVERSED 6