Xing Yan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 25, 2019

14561398 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2019)

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.
14/561,398 12/05/2014 Xing Yan 104161-200 8244
140282 7590 07/25/2019
Murtha Cullina LLP
One Century Tower
265 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
EXAMINER
AMARA, MOHAMED K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2019 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):
ipdocketing@murthalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XING YAN and MICHAEL SHUR1
____________

Appeal 2018-008097
Application 14/561,398
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This case is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems for monitoring and
controlling optical energy and, more specifically, “to a coating that provides
anti-reflection properties while deflecting a controlled fraction of light flux

1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which is
also identified as the real party in interest. See Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008097
Application 14/561,398

2
for monitoring and control purposes.” E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1. Claim 1 is
reproduced below from page 11 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:
1. A system for monitoring and controlling optical energy,
comprising:
an optical system including an optical energy receiver, the optical
energy receiver having a surface for receiving an optical beam;
a coating applied to an exterior of the surface, wherein the
coating includes an optical nanoporous dielectric thin film
having an array of tilted nanoscale rods for reflecting a scatter
beam at a determined angle away from the optical energy
receiver and passing a remaining portion of the optical beam into
the optical energy receiver;
a satellite detector for detecting an intensity of the scatter beam
reflected away from the optical energy receiver by the coating;
and
a control system that receives and processes scatter beam data
from the satellite detector to determine an intensity of the optical
beam impacting the surface of the optical energy receiver of the
optical system.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Welser (US 2012/0319223 A1, published Dec. 20, 2012). The
Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as representative,
and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final
Appeal 2018-008097
Application 14/561,398

3
Action dated July 21, 2017, and in the Examiner’s Answer dated May 31,
2018. See generally Final Act. 2–17; Ans. 3–10.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 appears at pages 6–8 of the Final
Action. Of particular relevance to the issues raised by the Appellant in this
appeal, the Examiner finds that Welser discloses a system for monitoring
and controlling optical energy including a substrate comprising, e.g., a
photodetector sensor, and a coating applied to the substrate, wherein the
coating includes an optical nanoporous dielectric thin film that has an array
of tilted nanoscale rods. Final Act. 6–7 (citing, e.g., Welser ¶¶ 5, 48, 49 &
Figs. 1, 9). As to the claimed “satellite detector,” the Examiner finds that
Figure 6 depicts light intensity data used, e.g., “to calibrate and characterize
the spectral responses of the photodetector,” and that, although “the satellite
detector is not disclosed explicitly,” a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the data must have been detected and collected
by a satellite detector. Final Act. 7. In the Answer, the Examiner further
finds that the data of Figure 6 “could not have been measured for example
by the optical energy receiver itself, in the case where the latter receives the
transmitted light through the nanostructure coating.” Ans. 7. In view of
those and other findings less material to the issues raised in this appeal, the
Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 6–8.
The Appellant first argues that Welser does not teach or suggest “a
coating applied to an exterior of the surface [of the optical energy receiver],”
as required by claim 1. Br. 6. The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s
analysis is “convoluted and nonsensical.” Id.
Appeal 2018-008097
Application 14/561,398

4
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
Welser teaches that its nanorod coatings may be used with “a wide range of
devices, including, for example, both photovoltaic cells and photodetector
sensors.” Welser ¶¶ 48–49. Welser teaches that its coatings are applied to
“substrates,” e.g., id. ¶ 20, 48, Figs. 1, 9, and that the “substrate can
comprise a semiconductor device, a photonic device, a photovoltaic solar
cell, photodetector sensors and LEDs,” id. ¶ 48. Welser teaches such
coatings on both sides of the substrate. E.g., Fig. 1 (elements 120 and 140),
¶¶ 26, 33. In the Final Action, the Examiner focuses on Welser’s disclosure
of photodetector sensors, see Final Act. 6–7, and the Appellant does not
dispute that a photodetector sensor falls within the scope of the term “optical
energy receiver.” On this record, the Appellant has provided no persuasive
reason to reject the Examiner’s finding that a coating applied to a substrate
that comprises an optical energy receiver, as taught or suggested by Welser,
falls within the scope of the term “a coating applied to an exterior of the
surface [of the optical energy receiver].”
The Appellant also argues that Welser does not teach or suggest the
recited “satellite detector.” Br. 7–9. However, the Appellant fails to address
the Examiner’s finding that the data represented in Figure 6 of Welser must
have been detected and collected by a satellite detector that falls within the
scope of claim 1, and, thus, that Welser suggests a system comprising the
recited optical system and satellite detector. See id.
In the Answer, the Examiner elaborates on that rationale:
Although, this satellite detector is not disclosed, Fig. 6 for
example was cited in the last office action to demonstrate that the
Reflectivity spectral responses of the nanostructures (i.e.
intensity of light scattered away from the optical receiver by the
Appeal 2018-008097
Application 14/561,398

5
coating), understood as already deposited on the surface of the
optic receiver according to the different embodiments (¶ 20), are
necessarily collected and measured by an additional detector, i.e.
satellite detector, and could not have been measured for example
by the optical energy receiver itself, in the case where the latter
receives the transmitted light through the nanostructure coating.
The Examiner submits that given that the disclosed
structures in Fig. 1 or explained in Fig. 9, and which can
comprise optical detectors or sensors such as photodiodes or
solar cells, one with ordinary skills in the art would find it
necessary to use at least one additional detector to characterize
and calibrate the extremely sensitive optoelectronic systems such
photodiodes and solar cells, as shown in Fig. 6.
Ans. 7–8.
The Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to contest that rationale.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s findings concerning the recited “satellite detector.” See In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections . . . .”). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED