Ex Parte Carralero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

13149369 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/149,369
78061 7590
Boeing (TLG)
c/o Toler Law Group
8500 Bluffstone Cove
Suite A201
Austin, TX 78759
06/27/2011
06/15/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael A. Carralero
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.
11-0023 1324
EXAMINER
TAVLYKAEV, ROBERT FUATOVICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2883
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
docketinggroup@tlgiplaw.com
jj ordan @tlgiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Michael A. CARRALERO and TY A. LARSEN
Appeal2014-009178
Application 13/149,369
Technology Center 2800
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The disclosure is optical sensor comprising two photonic crystals r
configured to reflect incident light in response to a sensed parameter. See
abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and is reproduced
below:
Appeal2014-009178
Application 13/149,369
1. An optical sensor assembly comprising:
a substrate;
a first photonic crystal sensor coupled to the substrate, the first
photonic crystal sensor configured to reflect a first portion of incident
light corresponding to a first reflection spectrum, wherein a first
wavelength range of the first reflection spectrum changes in response
to changes in a first sensed parameter; and
a second photonic crystal sensor coupled to the substrate, the
second photonic crystal sensor configured to reflect a second portion
of the incident light corresponding to a second reflection spectrum,
wherein a second wavelength range of the second reflection spectrum
changes in response to changes in a second sensed parameter;
wherein the first reflection spectrum and the second reflection
spectrum are different to enable determination of the first sensed
parameter and to enable determination of the second sensed parameter
in response to the incident light, and
wherein the substrate, the first photonic crystal sensor, and the
second photonic crystal sensor are coupled to and overlie an end of an
optical fiber.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1through3, 7, 8, 10 through 13, 15,
17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung
Monolithic Silicon Photonic Crystal Slab Fiber Tip Sensor IEEE/LEOS
International Conference on Optical MEMS and Nanophotonics, 19-20 Aug.
2009 and Takiguchi (EP 1 324 099 Al, July 2, 2003). Final Act. 5-12. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jung, Takiguchi, and Noda (US 2008/0252890
Al, Oct. 16, 2008). Final Act. 11-12.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 6, 2014;
Reply Brief filed August 18, 2014; Final Office Action mailed January 27,
2014; and the Examiner's Answer mailed June 17, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-009178
Application 13/149,369
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung, Takiguchi, and Park, Monolithic
Silicon Photonic Crystal Fiber Tip Sensor for Refractive Index and
Temperature Sensing, OSA/CLEO/QELS conference, CThBl, 1-2, 16-21,
May 2010. Final Act. 12-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung, Takiguchi, and Raguin (US
2006/0119837 Al, June 8, 2006). Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jung, Takiguchi, and Kao (US 4,243,298, Jan. 6,
1981 ). Final Act. 15-16.
The Examiner has rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jung, Takiguchi, and Li (US 2006/0233481 Al,
Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 16-17.
ISSUES
Appellants' arguments directed to claims 1 through 3 and 7 on
pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief,
present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Jung and
Takiguchi teaches a first and second photonic crystal coupled to a
substrate where each is configured to reflect a portion incident
light at a spectrum where the wavelength range of the reflection
changes in response to a change in a sensed parameter, and where
the wavelength for the first and second crystals is different, as
recited in representative claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-009178
Application 13/149,369
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine
the teachings of Jung and Takiguchi?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 through 3 and 7
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments directed to the first issue. The Examiner finds that Takiguchi
teaches multiple photonic crystal sensors where each has a different
wavelength that cannot propagate and is reflected. Ans. 2-3. Thus, the
Examiner finds that Takiguchi teaches the use of two photonic crystals
which have different wavelengths as claimed. We have reviewed the
Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the
teachings of Jung and Takiguchi cited by Appellants' and the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner's finding, and we are not persuaded of error by
Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue.
Appellants' arguments to the second issue, assert that the combination
of Jung and Takiguchi is improper, as turning the crystals sideways would
render Takiguchi inoperable for its intended purpose. App. Br. 8. The
Examiner in response finds that using Takiguchi' s teaching of using multiple
crystals into Jung's sensor would require both crystals to be exposed to the
environment to be sensed, and require the arrangement of the crystals to be
rotated. Ans. 6. We concur with the Examiner. The crystals in Takiguchi
are to measure a parameter and the use of more than one is to provide a more
precise device. We do not see that turning the crystals with respect to the
source of light changes this purpose. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments
directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
4
Appeal2014-009178
Application 13/149,369
rejection of representative claim 1 and, therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 7.
Claims 8, 10 through 13, 15, 17, and 19
Appellants' arguments directed to these claims repeat the same
arguments as discussed with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 8-11. As, such,
we are similarly not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's rejection
of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 4 through 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, and 20
Appellants' arguments directed to these claims assert that the
additional references used in the rejections of these claims do not make up
for the deficiencies identified in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and
15. As discussed above Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
error (any deficiencies) in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,
8, and 15. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 through 6,
9, 14, 16, 18, and 20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through
20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5