Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2018

13920570 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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.
13/920,570 06/18/2013 Weimin Zhou ARL 12-44 5749
21364 7590 02/12/2018
U S ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: RDRL-LOC-I
2800 POWDER MILL RD
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1138
EXAMINER
ROBERTS, HERBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEIMIN ZHOU, OLUKAYODE OKUSAGA, and
JAMES P. CAHILL
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1—20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
According to the Brief, the real party in interest is the “U.S. Government as
represented by the Secretary of the Army” (Appeal Brief filed June 29,
2016, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 1).
2 Appeal Br. 7—30; Reply Brief filed February 8, 2017, hereinafter “Reply
Br.,” 1—20; Final Office Action entered November 12, 2015, hereinafter
“Final Act.,” 2—30; Examiner’s Answer entered December 16, 2016,
hereinafter “Ans.,” 2—32.
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a system and a method for
sensing vibrational and/or acoustical signals from a target area (Specification
filed June 18, 2013, hereinafter “Spec.,” Abstract and Tflf 5, 10). According
to the Specification, the invention may be used, e.g., for covert remote
activity sensing or in other applications such as subterranean seismic sensing
{id. 70-71). Figure 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
Figure 1 above depicts an embodiment for an acoustic/seismic sensor system
50 in accordance with the invention, wherein the system includes: an
optoelectronic oscillator subsystem 10 comprising, inter alia, a laser 11, an
optical modulator 12, a fiber optical coupler 13, sensing fiber 14, a fiber
sensor 15 (a target area); a homodyne interferometer subsystem 30 for
removing signals other than sideband signals including, e.g., an RF phase
2
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
shifter 32 and an RF mixer 33; and a conversion and output subsystem 50
including an analog-to-digital signal processor 41 (Spec. 3 8—42).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 31), with key limitations emphasized and some
line spacing added, as follows:
1. A system for sensing vibrational and/or acoustical signals
from a target area comprising:
an optoelectronic oscillator comprising a light generator, a
modulator, and at least one optical fiber, the optoelectronic
oscillator operating to send a modulated carrier signal having
a carrier-frequency through the optical fiber into-a target area
and receive a return signal comprising sideband signals',
a circuit for removal of signals other than sideband signals
operatively connected to the optoelectronic oscillator for
receiving of the optical return signal from the target area and
substantially removing the carrier frequency; the circuit for
removal of the carrier frequency comprising;
a phase shifter;
a mixer operatively connected to the phase shifter;
a control circuit operatively connected to the mixer and
the phase shifter for controlling the phase shifter and
operating to remove the[ ] carrier frequency;
a signal processor operatively connected to the circuit for
removal of the carrier frequency, the signal processor operating
to process the sideband signals to detect acoustical and/or
vibrational signals from the target area.
3
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103, as follows:
A. Claims 1—9, 12—15, and 17—20 as unpatentable over Cole et al.3
(hereinafter “Cole”) in view of Bakhtiari et al.4 (hereinafter
“Bakhtiari”); and
B. Claims 10, 11, and 16 as unpatentable over Cole in view of
Bakhtiari and Maruyama.5
(Ans. 2—32; Final Act. 2—30.)
III. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Cole describes a system for sensing
vibrational and/or acoustical signals from a target area including many of the
limitations recited in claim 1 (Ans. 2—3). The Examiner finds that Cole’s
disclosure differs from claim 1 ’s subject matter in that the reference does not
describe the “circuit for removal of the carrier frequency” and “signal
processor” limitations {id. at 3). To resolve these differences, the Examiner
relies on Bakhtiari’s teachings {id. at 3—4). The Examiner concludes from
these findings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
certain elements or features disclosed in Bakhtiari with Cole’s system in the
manner claimed by the inventors {id. at 4).
The Appellant contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
Cole does not disclose the “optoelectronic oscillator” limitations highlighted
3 US 5,012,088, issued April 30, 1991.
4 US 2010/0290063 Al, published November 18, 2010.
5 US 2001/0032514 Al, published October 25, 2001.
4
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
above in reproduced claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7). Specifically, the Appellant
argues that “Cole recovers the signal in a different manner using cross
propagated light beams” and that “[i]n Cole, the vibrating signal applied to
the sensor are used to phase modulate the counter propagating optical
signals” (id.). According to the Appellant, Cole does not teach “a return
signal comprising sideband signals” and subsequently removing the carrier
frequency, as required by the claims (id. at 7, 11; Reply Br. 1—2, 13).
Furthermore, the Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to articulate a
sufficient reason or motivation to combine Bakhtiari and Cole in the manner
claimed by the inventors (Appeal Br. 8—17).
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection is not well-
founded. Our reasons follow.
Cole describes an optical sensor for measuring naturally-occurring
phenomena such as vibrations (Abstract). Cole’s Figure 1 is reproduced as
follows:
5
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
FIG. /
M
Cole’s Figure 1 above depicts a block diagram for a vibration sensing device
(Cole, col. 2,11. 61—64). As described in Cole, the optical circuit includes a
light source 14 from which low coherence light is propagated through an
optical fiber 16 into a single mode coupler 18, which splits the light into two
beams applied at the other side of the coupler to optical fibers 20 and 22 {id.
at col. 3,11. 17—30). Thus, Cole teaches that “counter rotating beams of light
are interjected into the opposite ends of the sensor 10 such that they combine
or merge into one beam” {id. at col. 3,11. 48—51). Cole teaches that, on fiber
22’s side, if a phase modulator 24 operates at a carrier frequency supplied by
an oscillator 25, the vibrating signal applied to sensor 10 can be used to
phase modulate the counter propagating optical signals {id. at col. 3,11. 51—
54). According to Cole, the counter rotating optical signals are coherently
combined by coupler 18 to produce an amplitude modulated intensity signal,
which may then be detected by photodetector 28, which in turn is connected
6
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
to amplifier 30 to a demodulator circuit for recovering the signal obtained
from sensor 10 {id. at col. 3,11. 58—64).
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 2—3), Cole has not been
shown to disclose, either explicitly or inherently, an optoelectronic oscillator
that sends a modulated carrier signal having a carrier frequency through the
optical fiber into a target area and receives a return signal comprising
sideband signals, as required by claim 1. Instead, Cole merely teaches that
“[i]f the modulator 24 is controlled to operate at a carrier frequency supplied
by an oscillator 25, the vibrating signal applied to the sensor 10 can be used
to phase modulate the counter propagating optical signals” (Cole, col. 3,11.
51—54), as we found above. Again, according to Cole, “[t]he counter
rotating optical signals are coherently combined by the coupler 18 to
produce an amplitude modulated intensity signal” {id. at col. 3,11. 58—60).
These teachings are insufficient to support the Examiner’s finding that the
disputed “optoelectronic oscillator” limitations are described in Cole.
In addition, we agree with the Appellant (e.g., Appeal Br. 9) that the
Examiner’s articulated reason for combining Bakhtiari with Cole does not
support an obviousness conclusion with some rational underpinning based
on facts. According to the Examiner, a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have used, e.g., a quadrature mixer that involves a phase shifter as
disclosed in Bakhtiari (| 31) in place of the elements disclosed in Cole (col.
3,1. 65—col. 4,1. 5) as “art-recognized equivalents for removal of the carrier
frequency to determine the vibrational signal from the target area” (Ans. 3—
4). Bakhtiari, however, appears to relate to a different type of system—i.e.,
a millimeter wavelength (MMW) measurement (MMW) system (Abstr.). In
particular, Bakhtiari teaches that “[ajnalogous to heterodyne detection of
7
Appeal 2017-005086
Application 13/920,570
interferometric optical signals, mixing of the backscattered electromagnetic
signal with a portion of the reference transmitted signal (i.e., a local
oscillator) allows recovery of low-frequency modulations induced by the
vibrating target” (Bakhtiari 128) (emphasis added). Thus, according to
Bakhtiari, “phase interference of the coherent MMW radiation is used to
deduce information about relative small in-plane displacements” (id.).
Furthermore, as the Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 10), Bakhtiari teaches
that phase modulation is induced by the target—not a phase shifter (| 28).
The Examiner does not direct us to sufficient evidence establishing that
Bakhtiari’s quadrature mixer and Cole’s amplifier 30, diplexer 32, amplifiers
34, limiter 36, mixer 38, and divider 40 are in fact art-recognized
equivalents. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined these references, the Examiner does not direct us to sufficient
evidence that the resulting combination would result in the claimed system
in which the carrier frequency is removed from the return signal comprising
sideband signals resulting from the signal sent to the target area by the
optoelectronic oscillator.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection as
entered against claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon. Additionally,
because the two other independent claims—i.e., claims 9 and 12—recite
limitations similar to the disputed limitations recited in claim 1, we do not
sustain the rejections as to all claims.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A and B are not sustained. Therefore, the Examiner’s final
decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8