Ex Parte Rutkiewicz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

13937636 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/937,636 07/09/2013
114172 7590 09/25/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Power Controls,
Sensing Systems
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3207
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert D. Rutkiewicz
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.
70765US01 (U380152US) 6057
EXAMINER
RATCLIFFE, LUKE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT D. RUTKIEWICZ and TODD A. ELL
Appeal2017-011662
Application 13/937,636
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert D. Rutkiewicz and Todd A. Ell (Appellants) 1 appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
1 In the Appeal Brief, ROSEMOUNT AEROSPACE INC. is indicated as the
real party in interest.
Appeal2017-011662
Application 13/937,636
Appellants' invention relates to systems for tracking an object and in
particular, to systems and methods for orienting an optical tracking system
toward an off-axis object. Spec. para. 1.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of tracking an object, comprising:
receiving light from the object at a lens, the lens having,
an optical axis, an on axis linear optical surface, and a non-linear
peripheral portion surrounding the linear optical surface;
directing light received from the object onto a
photodetector array via the non-linear peripheral portion of the
lens;
determining a direction of the object with respect to the
optical axis of the lens from a location of the light on the
photodetector array; and
using the determined direction to orient the optical axis of
the lens toward the object to track the object.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Crawford (US 2013/0070239 Al, published Mar.
21, 2013) in view of Shin (US 7,889,326 B2, issued Feb. 15, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group. Br. 3--4. We take claim 1
as representative of this group, and claims 2-20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Crawford discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 including a method of tracking an object comprising receiving light
from the object at lens 510. Final Act. 2 (citing Crawford Fig. 5E). The
2
Appeal2017-011662
Application 13/937,636
Examiner finds that Crawford teaches a standard lens, and not one with a
non-linear peripheral portion and an on axis linear optical surface. Id. The
Examiner relies on Shin as teaching a lens having an optical axis, an on axis
linear optical surface 27a, 27b, and a non-linear peripheral portion
surrounding the linear optical surface. Id. at 2-3 ( citing Shin Fig. 4); see
also Ans. 4--5 (citing Shin col. 5, 11. 13-24). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to use the Shin lens in the Crawford system to
allow light to pass through the center of the lens undistorted, which allows a
transmitter and a detector to share a common space, creating a more compact
device. Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue that, "[i]n Crawford, the only lens disclosed is 510.
That lens focuses all light to a focal point. That is, the entire lens is linear.
In contrast, the claims require a lens with linear and non-linear portions.
This is not taught or suggested in the prior art." Br. 4.
Appellants' argument does not address the rejection as articulated by
the Examiner, which relies on Shin's teaching of a lens having an on axis
linear optical surface and a non-linear peripheral portion surrounding the
linear optical surface, and modifying Crawford to use such a lens. See Final
Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 2, 4--5. Appellants present no arguments directed to
the proposed modification of Crawford.
Appellants' argument thus does not apprise us of Examiner error in
rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Crawford and Shin, with claims 2-20 falling with claim 1.
DECISION
3
Appeal2017-011662
Application 13/937,636
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Crawford in view of Shin is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a).
AFFIRMED
4