Ex Parte Klotz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201713285821 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation