DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated December 16, 2025.
The amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1 and 4 were amended. No claim was cancelled. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending in the current application and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of the Remarks, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Pacala et al., US 20180329065 A1 in view of Ichinomiya et al., US 5422697 A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala et al., US 20180329065 A1 ("Pacala") in view of Ichinomiya et al., US 5422697 A ("Ichinomiya ").
Regarding claim 1, Pacala discloses an optical measurement apparatus for determining object information of objects in at least one monitoring region (Fig. 15B, active imager system 1501, Paragraph [0149]), the optical measurement apparatus comprising at least one reception device for receiving light signals coming from at least one object (Fig. 15B, light detection system 1504, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]), wherein the at least one reception device comprises at least one electro-optical receiver for converting light signals into electrical signals (Fig. 15B, light detection system 1504, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]), [1…], wherein the at least one electro-optical receiver has a plurality of reception regions arranged one behind another viewed in the direction of at least one receiver axis (Fig. 15B, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, Paragraph [0060]: micro-optic receiver layer can be one or two-dimensional array) and that are evaluated separately with respect to the respectively received light intensity (Fig. 15B, photosensors 1526, Paragraph [0151]), [2…].
Pacala does not teach: [1…]: wherein at least one light diffraction element is arranged in a receiver light path of the at least one reception device upstream of the at least one receiver and [2…]: and wherein at least one boundary periphery of at least one light diffraction element at least regionally does not extend perpendicularly to the at least one receiver axis viewed in the projection onto the at least one receiver, wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element comprises one or more of: at least one periphery of at least one optical lens a periphery of a stop or mask that extends at least regionally in a zigzag shape with flattened and/or rounded tips and/or at least regionally has a free curve profile a periphery of a heating wire, and a periphery of a window of a housing of the measurement apparatus.
However, Ichinomiya teaches an aperture blade with an inner edge that is formed to be uneven. The unevenness of the inner edge has relatively higher portions and relatively lower portions (Figs. 1-2, aperture blades 1, inner edge 1b, Col. 2 line 62 – Col. 3 line 15). As shown in Fig. 2, the unevenness can be seen as a zigzag pattern with rounded tips.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apertures in Pacala’s light detection system by forming the receiver aperture to have uneven edges, which is taught by Ichinomiya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “prevent degradation of the image quality,” as suggested by Ichinomiya (Col. 1 lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 3, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to Claim 1.
Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, does not teach: wherein more than 7/10 of the extent of at least one boundary periphery of at least one light diffraction element do not extend perpendicularly to the at least one receiver axis viewed in the projection onto the at least one receiver.
However, Ichinomiya teaches the aperture blades with uneven inner edges being arranged to form a circle (Fig. 8, small aperture plate 20a, 20b, Col. 4 lines 44-55).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apertures in Pacala’s light detection system by forming the receiver aperture to be a circle with uneven edges, which is taught by Ichinomiya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “prevent degradation of the image quality,” as suggested by Ichinomiya (Col. 1 lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 5, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement apparatus has a housing in which at least one reception device is arranged (Pacala, Fig. 15B, Paragraph [0150]: active imager system housed in an enclosure), and the housing has at least one window through which light signals passes from the monitoring region to the at least one reception device (Pacala, Fig. 15B, Transparent window 1508, Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one receiver has a plurality of individual reception elements and within each case at least one reception region or the at least one receiver has at least one line-type or area-type arrangement of a plurality of reception regions (Pacala, Fig. 15B, photosensors 1526, micro-optical receiver channel array 1505, Paragraph [0151], Paragraph [0060]: micro-optic receiver layer can be one or two-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 8, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical measurement apparatus is configured for determining at least one direction of at least one captured object relative to the measurement apparatus (Pacala, Fig. 8, Paragraph [0090]-[0094]: emitter and sensor arrays can sample a 3D space corresponding to a 3D image).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, in further view of Bayha et al., US 20140320845 A1 ("Bayha '845").
Regarding claim 4, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, does not teach: wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element comprises one or more of: at least one periphery of at least one optical lens; a periphery of a heating wire, a periphery of a window of a housing of the measurement apparatus, wherein the at least one boundary periphery of the at least one light diffraction element extends at least regionally in a zigzag shape and/or at least regionally in a wave shape and/or at least regionally in a zigzag shape with flattened and/or rounded tips and/or at least regionally has a free curve profile.
However, Bayha '845 teaches a heating conductor than is placed in a meandering form on a window (Fig. 2, heating conductor 24, 24.1, 24.2, Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light detection system, disclosed by Pacala and Ichinomiya, by including a meandering, or free curve, heating conductor on the window of the light detection system housing, which is disclosed by Bayha '845. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “cover a large surface area in a space-saving manner” as suggested by Bayha '845 (Paragraph [0019]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, in further view of Bayha et al., US 20140326859 A1 ("Bayha").
Regarding claim 7, Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, discloses the optical measurement apparatus according to claim 1.
Pacala, as modified in view of Ichinomiya, does not teach: wherein at least one rectangular or square optical lens is arranged in the receiver light path.
However, Bayha teaches a quadrangular reception lens along the receiver path (Fig. 3, reception lens 10, Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bulk receiver optic in Pacala’s light detection system with the quadrangular reception lens disclosed by Bayha. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to firmly connect the reception lens to a retaining frame which can displace the lens upward or downward along an axis, as suggested by Bayha (Paragraph [0062]-[0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito et al., US 20070154207 A1 teaches an aperture blade with an uneven sawtooth pattern formed on the inner edges. The uneven pattern contains flattened tips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645