Ex Parte Klotz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

13285821 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/285,821 10/31/2011 Matthew J. KLOTZ RTN-798PUS(11-1450-US-NP) 3431
33164 7590 09/27/2017
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, SAMANTHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW J. KLOTZ and JEAN-PAUL BULOT
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Matthew J. Klotz and Jean-Paul Bulot (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for optically
resolving one or more vibrating objects at an unknown distance. Claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention, with certain limitations
italicized.
1. A method, comprising:
optically resolving one or more vibrating objects at an
unknown distance using a vibrometer, the vibrometer
comprising a processor, a memory, and an optical device
comprising a transmitter and a receiver, the resolving
comprising:
transmitting a first optical waveform having a
linear frequency modulated chirp from the transmitter towards
a region of space;
receiving, at the receiver, a second optical
waveform reflected from the one or more vibrating objects in
the region of space;
determining, by the vibrometer, both a vibration
frequency and a range information of each of the one or more
vibrating objects based upon one or more characteristics of the
second optical waveform; and
storing, in the memory, the determined vibration
frequency and range information for processing by the
processor.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Venkatesan (WO 2010/086044 Al,
pub. Aug. 5, 2010) and Makris (US 7,495,994 B2, iss. Feb. 24, 2009). Final
Act. 4.
2
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
II. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, and Heflinger (US 6,545,785 Bl, iss.
Apr. 8, 2003). Id. at 6.
III. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, Yamamoto (US
2010/0014567 Al, pub. Jan. 21, 2010), and Redman (US 5,398,130, iss.
Mar. 14, 1995). Id. at 7.
IV. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, and Fahim (US 6,823,033
B2, iss. Nov. 23, 2004). Id. at 8.
V. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, and Christensen (US
7,239,777 Bl, iss. July 3, 2007). Id.
VI. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, and Schneider (Richard Schneider,
Peter Thurmel, and Michael Stockmann, Distance measurement of moving
objects by frequency modulated laser radar, Optical Engineering, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 33—37, January 2001). Id. at 9.
VII. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, and Dalhoff (US 2003/0011780 Al,
pub. Jan. 16, 2003). Id.
VIII. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, and Garrett (US
2003/0030882 Al, pub. Feb. 13, 2003). Id. at 10.
IX. Claim 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, and Christensen. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
X. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, Christensen, Yamamoto,
and Redman. Id. at 11.
XI. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venkatesan, Makris, Heflinger, Christensen, and Garrett.
Id. at 12.
OPINION
Rejections I— VIII andXI; claims 1—11 and 15—20
The outcome of the arguments addressed below is dispositive of the
outcome of Rejections I—VIII and XI.
The Examiner finds that Venkatesan discloses most of the limitations
of claim 1, including transmitting a first optical waveform and determining a
vibration frequency and range information of vibrating objects using a
vibrometer, but that Venkatesan’s waveform is not a waveform having a
linear frequency modulated chirp. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
Makris teaches a waveform having a linear frequency modulated chirp. Id.
at 5 (citing Makris, col. 5,11. 20-27). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Venkatesan to include a waveform having a
linear frequency modulated chirp as disclosed in Makris, in order to, inter
alia, “improve range resolution.” Id.
Acoustic Waveforms
Appellants argue that, because “Makris teaches acoustical
waveforms. . . . Makris does not teach transmitting a first optical waveform
4
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
having a linear frequency modulated chirp from the transmitter towards a
region of space.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Makris, col. 4,11. 48—55, Abstract).
The Examiner responds that “Makris is cited to teach that it is known
in the art for waveforms to have certain properties, such as having a linear
frequency modulated chirp in order to achieve a time-varying frequency,”
and that Makris is pertinent for “teaching a generic waveform.” Ans. 6.
In reply, Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner has changed the
rationale for combining the references,” and, in any event, Makris’
disclosure that “linear frequency modulation improves range resolution,
signal-to-noise ratio and signal background reverberation ratio” relates to
“pulse compression or matched-filter techniques,” whereas Venkatesan’s
lights “would not need nor use pulse compression or match-filter
techniques.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Makris establishes that
pulse compression is a known technique for improving range resolution.
Makris, col. 5,11. 23—26. Appellants do not persuasively argue that
Venkatesan would not have acquired an improved range resolution and
signal to noise ratio upon being combined with the teachings of Makris. At
least this element of the Examiner’s proffered reasoning has a rational
underpinning.
Non-Analogous Art
Appellants argue that Makris is non-analogous art, because it is
directed to acoustic signals, which Appellants contend is a different field of
endeavor and is not pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is
involved. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants define the problem to be solved as using
5
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
optical waveforms to determine both a vibration frequency and a range
information of vibrating objects. Id.
In response, the Examiner determines that a more accurate statement
of the problem is “using transmitters to emit a source waveform toward an
object to be measured, using a receiver to receive the object-reflected
waveform and using the received waveform information to determine
characteristics about the measured object.” Ans. 7.
Appellants maintain that the problem with which the inventor is
involved must be defined to include optical waveforms and determining a
vibration frequency of vibrating objects. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner has the better argument. Appellants would have us
narrowly define the problem to read the field of the invention into the
problem to be solved, which we decline to do. The problem with which the
inventor was involved is using signals to obtain information about a target
including a range to the target. Spec., para. 2. One skilled in the art would
understand that Makris’ “returns from environmental features” that are
“charted in horizontal range and bearing” (see Makris, col. 4,11. 50—52) are
relevant to using signals (returns) to obtain information about a target
(environmental features) including a range to the target.
Intended Purpose
Appellants also argue that “[a]ny frequency change [in Venkatesan’s
device] will change the color which will make [Venkatesan’s] apparatus not
work as intended.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellants, different
shades of red or blue light will produce different results with respect to
6
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
vibration, and, thus, Venkatesan’s apparatus would not operate for its
intended purpose. Id.
The Examiner responds that frequency modulating would not
necessarily result in the color of the light changing, because 1) the
“modulation may not be significant enough to alter the color of the light”
and 2) as each color has a “range (i,e. red: 620-750nm; blue: 450-495nm;
and green: 495—570nm). . . . frequency modulation of each light source of
Venkatesan would result in the same ‘color’ of light being transmitted, only
at a different frequency.” Ans. 8. According to the Examiner, “without a
degree of modulation recited in the claim language, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that a waveform frequency modulation . . . would
allow . . . Venkatesan to . . . operate consistent with its intended purpose . . .
with . . . increased range resolution and signal-to-noise ratio.” Ans. 9.
Appellants reply that a limited frequency modulation of the strobe in
Venkatesan, while perhaps maintaining the color range, would not “provide
the benefits of increased range resolution and signal-to-noise ratio as the
Examiner alleges.” Reply Br. 4. According to Appellants, “if there are no
noise issues or signals that need to be located, or if linear frequency
modulation provides little benefit, then one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to alter Venkatesan just to add linear frequency
modulation which would be costlier” whereas Venkatesan desires to “find a
low cost solution.” Id.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument, because it is well established
that if there are tradeoffs involved regarding features, costs,
manufacturability, or the like, such things do not necessarily prevent the
proposed combination. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157,
7
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine.”). In this case, Appellants do not persuasively argue
that Venkatesan would not have improved range resolution, or signal-to-
noise ratio. Appellants’ arguments that any frequency change will change
the color are also not persuasive because they amount to mere attorney
argument, no evidence having been provided to support the position that a
frequency change would necessarily change the color, or frustrate the
purpose of Venkatesan.
Signal Background Reverberation Ratio
Appellants argue that “signal background reverberation ratio is an
acoustic parameter and would not be considered in combining Makris with
Venkatesan.” Appeal Br. 11.
Although we appreciate that signal background reverberation ratio is
an acoustic parameter, Appellants do not argue that range resolution and
signal-to-noise ratio do not apply to optics, and as discussed supra, the
totality of the rejection has rational underpinnings. This argument is not
persuasive.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain Rejections I—VIII and XI.
Rejections IX and X; Claims 12—14
Claim 12 depends from independent claim 11 and recites, in part, that
the vibrometer comprises a laser master oscillator configured to generate a
third optical waveform.
8
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
The Examiner finds that Christensen teaches a laser master oscillator
configured to generate a third optical waveform. Final Act. 10 (citing
Christensen 10:51—11:5).
Generate Waveform
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on Christensen for a laser
master oscillator, and on Heflinger for a third optical waveform being one of
two reflected signals. Appeal Br. 12. According to Appellants, the rejection
is improper because claim 12 recites “a master oscillator is configured to
generate a third optical waveform,” whereas “the signal of Heflinger is one
of two reflected signals.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Christensen is cited as teaching a master
oscillator for transmitting “two (or multiple) beams by a transmitter,”
whereas “Heflinger is cited as teaching the heterodyning of multiple beams
at a receiver (as cited in the rejection of claim 12).” Ans. 9. According to
the Examiner, “the modification of Venkatesan with Christensen would
yield a system in which multiple beams (or waveforms) would be
transmitted by a transmitter, and the modification of Venkatesan with
Heflinger would yield a system in which multiple beams [Qor waveforms)
would be heterodyned at a receiver.” Id. at 9-10.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Christensen discloses that “a
master oscillator laser 801 is used to provide a stable phase reference laser
beam 802 . . . and a fully reflecting mirror 805 splits the power in beam 802
into generally N beams 806—808 of lower power.” Christensen, col. 10,11.
53—58; Fig. 6a; see also Final Act. 10. We agree with the Examiner that
Christensen discloses a laser master oscillator configured to generate a third
9
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
optical waveform. Christensen’s generated beam 802 is split for
transmission into multiple beams 806-808 similar to Appellants’ beam 102
being split into beam 102a and 102b. Christensen’s beams 806—808 are
generated by master laser 801, and Venkatesan would use these split beams
for transmission. The combination of Venkatesan and Christensen would
thus generate a third optical waveform.
Hindsight
Appellants argue that because “the Examiner has not shown all the
claim elements in the cited art, nor provided sufficient support to account for
the gaps between the claimed invention and the cited art, any rationale for
obviousness would not have been made but for reading Appellants’
specification.” Appeal Br. 13.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The Examiner provides
support in the art for each claim limitation, as discussed supra. See Ans. 9—
10. The Examiner’s reasons for various modifications come from the
references (see Final Act. 10-11) and not Appellants’ Specification. We
therefore are not persuaded that the Examiner’s reasoning lacks evidentiary
support or is necessarily based on impermissible hindsight.
We sustain the rejection of claim 12. Claims 13 and 14 fall with
claim 12. See Appeal Br. 11.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal 2016-006513
Application 13/285,821
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
11