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 amendment filed 03/02/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1-11, 13-14 and 18 have
been amended, claims 16-17 have been canceled, claims 21-22 have been added. Thus claims 1-15 and 18-22 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome partial objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 11/28/2025. Additionally, Claim 8 appears to include amendments but is labeled as “Original”, it is presumed as a typo.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued claim interpretation in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,” for 35 U.S.C. § 101,
Applicant argues:
The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees, but in the interest of advancing prosecution, has amended claim 1 to further embody improvements discussed in the specification as-filed, rendering the § 101 rejections moot. See, e.g., Spec., 4:1-10; 23:10-16; 24:1-6
Amendments to claim 1 recite specific steps undertaken to bridge physical metrology and virtual simulation during the assembly of an optical system. Indeed, the recitation of specific steps, such as "measuring, using one or more sensors, individual parts... to provide physical measurement data" and "applying construction data to geometrically string together... wherein the construction data defines at least one mechanical relationship between at least two of the virtualized individual parts," distinguishes the process recited in the amended claims from those previously deemed ineligible.
This is unlike the subject matter deemed ineligible in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("CyberSource"). There, the Federal Circuit found claims ineligible because the recited steps of obtaining transaction information and constructing a map of credit card numbers could be performed "in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." Id. at 1372. Unlike the claims at-issue in CyberSource, the amended claims specifically recite the mechanism used (e.g., application of logical construction data defining geometric interfaces to physical measurement data collected by sensors) to generate the actual assembly model. This does not merely automate a "mental process." A human cannot mentally "measur[e], using one or more sensors... physical measurement data" at the sub-micron level, nor can a human mentally "apply[] construction data" to calculate the interaction of complex geometric interfaces in 3D space, as claimed. These are technical steps that improve the manufacturing process by enabling predictive correction before physical assembly.
The Office Action further asserted that the limitations relating to "determining a correction measure" represent mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), and that the assembly steps are merely "insignificant extra-solution activity." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization in light of the amendments. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites generating "an actual assembly model by applying construction data" where the "construction data defines at least one mechanical relationship between at least two of the virtualized individual parts." This is not a generic mathematical calculation of variables. It is the specific application of logical constraint data (originating from CAD) to physical measurement data to simulate complex mechanical interactions. Furthermore, the final step of "using the correction measure to assemble the individual parts" is not insignificant extra- solution activity. Unlike the data gathering in CyberSource (collecting credit card numbers to verify them), the measurement and modeling here are tied to the manufacturing process. The "correction measure" (e.g., a spacer thickness) has no utility outside of its application to the physical assembly. By physically assembling the optical system based on the computed correction, the amended claims transform the digital simulation into a tangible, improved optical device, thereby integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical manufacturing application.
Moreover, recent Office guidance confirms subject matter eligibility of the amended claims because the claimed subject matter is directed to an improvement in a technical field. See Exparte Carmody, Appeal No. 2025-002843, (PTAB Dec. 30, 2025), Exparte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2025) (precedential).
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the Office to reconsider and withdraw the § 101 rejections.
(see Response filed 03/02/2026 [pages 8-9]).
With respect to applicant's argument, the applicant argues that amened claim 1 is not directed to a mental process because the claim recites measuring individual parts using one or more sensors and applying construction data to generate an actual assembly model. However, the identified abstract idea does not mean the entire claim as a mental process. Rather, the rejection specifically identifies the limitation of using an actual assembly model and a target assembly model to determine a correction measure as an evaluative process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. The claim does not recite any specific algorithm, computational technique, or technological mechanism that constrains how the correction measure is determined. Instead, the limitation broadly recites comparing or evaluating two models to determine a correction measure. Therefore, the limitation is direct to a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
With respect to applicant's argument, the applicant argues that the claimed subject matter “is not a generic mathematical calculation of variables,” but instead “the specific application of logical constraint data (originating from CAD) to physical measurement data to simulate complex mechanical interactions.” However, this argument is not persuasive.
As explained in the current Office Action based on the amendments, the limitation of Step (b) with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification can be considered to represent mathematical concepts as described in the instance specification, For example, Pages 23 and 31-35. Therefore, the limitations disclose mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Additionally, the claim recites generating and manipulating data that represent relationships between parts within a virtual model. The use of construction data, even if originating from CAD or involving complex relationships, does not change the nature of these operations, which correspond to mathematical relationships and calculations used to represent spatial configuration of components. Therefore, the limitation is direct to a “mathematical concept”, similar to the performing/determining steps in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."
With respect to applicant's argument, the applicant argues that the claimed subject matter integrate judicial exception into practical application. However, this argument is not persuasive.
As explained in current Office Action, the additional limitation of “using the correction measure to assemble the individual parts” is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., assembling parts after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Additionally, the limitation is merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more … Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, for analysis under step 2B, similar to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional limitations recite at high level of generality and does not specify how the assembly is performed or any particular technological mechanism for the assembly. Rather, these limitations merely apply the determined result of the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and/or mathematical concepts), do not integrate judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot
because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly applied reference Sheng CN107247832A teaches the newly amended limitation of claim 1, electronic data in the form of matrices and generate an assembly model by applying construction data originating from a computer aided design (CAD) model to geometrically string together the virtualized individual parts using homogenous coordinates, wherein: the construction data defines at least one mechanical relationship between at least two of the virtualized individual parts (See Pages. 1-2, Page.5 and Page.10-12).
Therefore, the combination of Xiao (“Application of Virtual Optical Assembly in Research and Development of Special Optical Instrument,” published on 2007) in view of Wang CN101598539B and Sheng CN107247832A and Pettersson US20150254376A1 teach or suggest the amended limitations of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 1, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the Fig.7 should
be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “comparing the virtual actual position of a virtualized individual part and the virtual target position of the virtualized individual part …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “comparing the virtual actual position of a specific one of the virtualized individual parts and the virtual target position of the specific one of the virtualized individual parts …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 17, which has been canceled, thereby rendering the claim 18 indefinite because the dependency cannot be determined. For the purpose of examination, the examiner presumes that claim 18 as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the geometric interfaces" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claim 22 is dependent upon claim 21, and is rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites “using the correction measure to assemble the set of individual parts comprises generating an assembly instruction based on the computed geometric change and providing the assembly instruction for output such that the assembly instruction causes physical assembly of the set of individual parts.”
In this case, the elements contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims 1-15 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated
the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates,
and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-15, 18 and 21-22 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 20 is directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine;
No, Claims 19 is directed to machine-readable hardware storage devices and does not fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture.
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “machine-readable hardware storage devices” of claim 19 encompasses signals per se. The specification (page. 16, lines 10-12) states that “A computer program product, such as e.g. a computer program, can be provided or supplied, for example, as a storage medium, such as e.g. a memory card, a USB stick, a CD-ROM, a DVD, or else in the form of a downloadable file from a server in a network,” which does not exclude propagating electromagnetic waves or signals. Additionally, the specification does not define any “machine-readable hardware storage devices” or limit the recited “device” to tangible, non-transitory hardware. Instead, the specification (page.15 lines 14-16) states that, “In the case of an implementation in terms of software technology, the respective device or unit can be embodied as a computer program product, as a function, as a routine, as part of a program code or as an executable object.” The further recitation of “instructions” in claim 19 only serves to limit the content carried by the electromagnetic waves or signals. As understood in light of the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 19 encompasses signals which are not within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(I). It is suggested that claim 19 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” machine-readable medium/device to overcome this rejection.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “c) using the actual assembly model and a target assembly model to determine a correction measure, wherein the target assembly model comprises virtual target positions of one or more of the virtualized individual parts in the virtually assembled state,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and evaluating an actual assembly model and a target assembly model, mentally determining how to adjust the actual assembly model to identical to the target assembly model, such as modifying part positions, orientations, or adding/removing components based on a comparison between the actual assembly model and the target assembly model. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).). Examiner note: the limitation recites at a high level of generality and does not specify how the “correction measure” is determined, nor does it recite any particular technological mechanism, algorithm, or specialized computing structure that constraints the determination. Therefore, the limitation does not preclude performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, and is reasonably considered as a mental process. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
As explained in MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Claim 1: The limitations of “b) using the physical measurement data to virtualize the set of individual parts as electronic data in the form of matrices and using the virtualized individual parts to generate an actual assembly model by applying construction data originating from a computer aided design (CAD) model to geometrically string together the virtualized individual parts using homogenous coordinates, wherein: the construction data defines at least one mechanical relationship between at least two of the virtualized individual parts, and the actual assembly model comprises virtual actual positions of the virtualized individual parts in a virtually assembled state.” The limitation, with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be considered to represent mathematical concepts as described in the instance specification, For example, Page 23, “The virtualization unit 202 generates virtualized individual parts K1 - KN (S704 in figure 7) from the provided measurement data MEM, OEM. This should be understood to mean a mathematical, for example geometric description of the (real) individual parts K1 - KN, for example in the form of matrices, which is stored in a data memory.” Pages 31-35, for example, “The above-described actual assembly models IMM can be determined with the aid of homogenous coordinates …The following calculation example should illustrate this: Target positions given in CS_B: … Calculation of the actual pose or actual position of CS_F in CS_B by way of a coordinate transformation from CS_K3 to CS_B, e.g., in homogenous coordinates: … Actuator travel calculation in CS_B, where Sp.ez is the unit vector in the effective direction of the positioning element ….” Therefore, the limitations disclose mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations to generate the target assembly model using virtualized individual parts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The elements of claims 19 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 19 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1, 19 and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “One or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations" and “A system, comprising: one or more processing devices; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations,” which are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional element: “measuring, using one or more sensors, a set of individual parts of an optical system to provide physical measurement data” and “… construction data originating from a computer aided design (CAD) model …” are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., obtain measurement data from sensors and construction data from CAD model), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Examiner note: The limitation of “measuring, using one or more sensors …” is recited at a high level of generality and does not specify how the sensors are configured or operated to measure the individual parts, nor does it recite any particular type of sensors, measurement technique, or technological improvement in the measurement process. Similarly, the limitation of “…construction data originating from …” is recited at a high level of generality and does not specify any particular technical manner in which the construction data is obtained, processed, or applied beyond its use as input to the abstract idea. Instead, the limitation broadly encompasses generic data acquisition from a CAD model, without reciting any specific data extraction technique, transformation, or technological implementation. Therefore, the limitation merely gathers data for use in the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limit on the execution of the claimed method.
Further, the following additional element: “using the correction measure to assemble the set of individual parts to form the optical system.”
The limitation is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., assembling parts after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Further, the limitation is merely use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. As further explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f): Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 19 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 19 and 20: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
… iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); …
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …
Similar to the analysis under Step 2A, prong Two, the additional limitations recite at high level of generality, and do not impose any meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Rather, these limitations merely gather data for use in the abstract idea and apply the determined result of the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 19 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-15, 18 and 21-22 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process and/or mathematical concepts, or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-15, 18 and 21-22 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the virtual actual position of a virtualized individual part and the virtual target position of the virtualized individual part to determine the correction measure.”
The limitation merely defines the step of determining the correction measure by a comparison between a virtual actual position and a virtual target position of the virtual individual part. The comparison constitutes an evaluation of positional information to determine a different, which is a process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
fixing a first virtualized individual part and a second virtualized individual part at their target positions from the target assembly model to generate the actual assembly model;
geometrically stringing together intermediate virtualized individual parts between the first virtualized individual part and the second virtualized individual part; and
determining the correction measure based on virtual actual positions of at least two intermediate virtualized individual parts.”
The limitation merely defines the process of determining the correction measure by arranging virtualized individual parts (e.g., fixing parts at target positions and geometrically stringing intermediate parts) and evaluating positional relationships among multiple parts to determine the correction measure. These steps constitute evaluating positional information, which are processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts or to a region between two adjacent individual parts.”
The limitation merely specifies that the determined correction measure is applied to a particular individual part or a region between two adjacent parts. This limitation merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., modifying part after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts or to a gap between two adjacent individual parts. ”
The limitation merely specifies that the determined correction measure is applied to a particular individual part or a gap between two adjacent parts. This limitation merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., modifying part after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following holds:
one of the individual parts comprises an optical element; and
an adjacent one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mechanical component, a mechatronic component and a bearing.”
The limitation merely specifies that the type of the individual parts (e.g., an optical element). This limitation does not modify how the correction measure is determined or applied, or how the actual assembly model is generated, and does not impose any technological or operational constraint on the claimed processes. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following holds:
one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mirror, a lens element, an optical grating, a waveplate, a stop and a sensor; and
an adjacent one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mechanical component, a mechatronic component and a bearing.”
The limitation merely specifies that the type of the individual parts (e.g., a member). This limitation does not modify how the correction measure is determined or applied, or how the actual assembly model is generated, and does not impose any technological or operational constraint on the claimed processes. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the correction measure comprises:
inserting a spacer between two of the individual parts; and
adjusting a play of a fastening mechanism which fastens two of the individual parts to one another, and/or adjusting an operating point of a mechatronic component as constituent part of one of the individual parts.”
The limitation merely specifies that determination of the correction measure includes identifying or selecting one or more corrective actions (e.g., inserting a spacer or adjusting a mechanism). The limitation is directed to evaluating and selecting appropriate corrective actions based on the comparison between the actual and target assembly models, which can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “The method of claim 8, wherein the mechatronic component comprises an actuator, and the correction measure is determined based on an available actuator travel of the actuator.”
The limitation merely specifies that the type of the mechatronic component (e.g., an actuator). This limitation does not modify how the correction measure is determined or applied, and does not impose any technological or operational constraint on the claimed processes. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the set of individual parts comprises more than 5 or 10 parts.”
The limitation merely specifies that number of parts of the optical system; This limitation does not modify how the correction measure is determined or applied, or how the actual assembly model is generated, and does not impose any technological or operational constraint on the claimed processes. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the correction measure comprises determining a gap between two of the individual parts, and
using the correction measure comprises inserting a spacer into the gap.”
The limitation recites that determining the correction measure includes determining a gap between two parts, which is an evaluating or comparison of positions and can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). The limitation further specifies inserting a spacer into the gap using the correction measure, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., inserting a spacer after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 11 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the correction measure relates to at least a first degree of freedom and a second degree of freedom which is different from the first degree of freedom.”
The limitation merely specifies that the correction measure relates to at least a first and second degrees of freedom. This limitation further defines how the correction measure is determined by considering different degrees of freedom, which constitutes an evacuating or analysis that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 12 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 recites “The method of claim 12, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to:
a first individual part of the set of individual parts;
between a first pair of individual parts for the first degree of freedom and a second individual part; or
between a second pair of individual parts for the second degree of freedom.”
The limitation merely specifies that the determined correction measure is applied to a first individual part, or between pairs of individual parts corresponding to different degrees of freedom. This limitation merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., modifying parts after determining the correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 13 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
measuring, using the one or more sensors, the assembled optical system to provide physical assembly measurement data;
comparing the physical assembly measurement data and the target assembly model to determine a further correction measure; and
based on the further correction measure, aligning one or more of the individual parts.”
The limitation recites additional steps including measuring, comparing, and aligning. The step of “measuring, using the one or more sensors … to provide physical assembly measurement data” is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., obtain physical assembly measurement data from sensors), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The step of “comparing the physical assembly measurement data and the target assembly model to determine …” constitutes an evaluation or comparison that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). The step of “based on the further correction measure, aligning one or more of the individual parts” merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity: Insignificant application (i.e., aligning parts after determining the further correction measure), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See also In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 14 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 15 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising, after assembling the optical system, operating the optical system.”
The limitation merely specifies operating the optical system after optical system has been assembled. This step occurs after the abstract process of determining the correction measure and assembling the system has been completed, and constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity as post-solution, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 15 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18 recites “The method of claim 17, further comprising:
comparing the virtual actual position of a specific one of the virtualized individual parts and the virtual target position of the specific one of the virtualized individual parts to determine the correction measure.”
The limitation merely defines the step of determining the correction measure by a comparison between a virtual actual position and a virtual target position of a specific one of the virtual individual part. The comparison constitutes an evaluation of positional information to determine a different, which is a process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 18 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein:
using the physical measurement data to virtualize the set of individual parts comprises processing the physical measurement data to generate a first set of virtualized data structures, wherein the first set of virtualized data structures defines a virtual geometric representation of the set of individual parts; and
the actual assembly model represents a virtual spatial configuration of the first set of virtualized data structures generated by applying the construction data to geometrically string together the first set of virtualized data structures according to the geometric interfaces.”
The limitation further defines processing the physical measurement data to generate virtualized data structures that define a virtual geometric representation of the individual parts, and constructing an actual assembly model representing a virtual spatial configuration of the virtualized data structures. Consistent with the analysis of claim 1, the limitations describe mathematical concepts used to model spatial relationships between parts to generate the actual assembly model. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 21 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 22 recites “determining the correction measure comprises generating a second set of virtualized data structures representing a corrected virtual state of the set of individual parts using the actual assembly model and the target assembly model, wherein the second set of virtualized data structures specifies a computed geometric change to the virtual geometric representation based on at least one of the virtual target positions; and
using the correction measure to assemble the set of individual parts comprises generating an assembly instruction based on the computed geometric change and providing the assembly instruction for output such that the assembly instruction causes physical assembly of the set of individual parts.”
The limitation further defines generating a second set of virtualized data structures representing a corrected virtual state based on the actual assembly model and the target assembly model, including specifying a computed geometric change to the virtual geometric representation. Consistent with the analysis of claim 1, the limitations describe mathematical concepts used to compute geometric changes to a virtual geometric representation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The limitation further recites generating an assembly instruction based on the computed geometric change and providing the assembly instruction for output such that the instruction causes physical assembly of the parts. This is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data output (i.e., outputting an instruction/command for assembly), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 22 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and
103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xiao (“Application of Virtual Optical Assembly in Research and Development of Special Optical Instrument,” published on 2007) in view of Wang CN101598539B and Sheng CN107247832A and Pettersson US20150254376A1.
Claim 1, Xiao teaches A method, comprising:
a) measuring, (Page.1, last paragraph, “Virtual assembly technology … putting manufactured optical components of the measured parameters of the same name alternative design parameters; …” page.2, second paragraph from last, “… Then takes the parts and components manufacturing based on aircraft and feeds back the actual size (actually measured value) of these optical components to the optical system model….” Examiner note: the references teaches that actual measured values of optical components are obtained and used in the modeling process, which corresponds to measuring individual parts to provide physical measurement data);
b) using the physical measurement data to virtualize the set of individual parts as electronic data
the actual assembly model comprises (Page.1, last paragraph, “Virtual assembly technology will help us out of the woods. The concrete operation is: Taking optical design CAD as the platform; putting manufactured optical components of the measured parameters of the same name alternative design parameters; using the original system model to re-design and re-calculate …” Page.2, paragraph 3, “(1) Virtual assembly is one kind of process, in which components model are re-positioned according to the restraint relationship. (2) Virtual assembly is a three-dimensional assembly process, which can simulate the product truly according to the shape characteristics and accuracy properties of the product design. It allows users to control the three-dimensional real simulation assembly process of products by the interactive way to examine the product to be possible assembly or not. This definition focuses on the simulation process of the product physics assembly process.” Page.2, last two paragraphs, “… With the aid of optical design CAD and machinery CAD, optical path design and the corresponding optics structural design can be carried out on the computer; and carries on the computer assembly and the interference analysis ... Virtual optical assembly is one kind of virtual assembly which contains the assembly design and takes the process control as the center.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the CAD representation of components on a computer necessarily corresponds to electronic data representing the components, as the CAD system stores, processes, and manipulates the component information in digital form.);
c) using the actual assembly model and (page.1, last paragraph, “using the original system model to re-design and re-calculate; calculating the system's practical value in image space (such as the surface location, image height, numerical aperture in image space and so on) to replace the design value. By whether can maintain (increase or decrease slightly) the original design level of image quality, determining the actual value is feasible or not. If it is not feasible, we can instruct the optics structural element re-design or adjustment, thus when the ultra difference of the optical components parameters are not oversized, it can ensure the optical equipment product quality, shorten the development cycle.” page.5, paragraph 2, “In order to solve this thorny problem, we use the actual structure size instead of the nominal size with the aid of optical design CAD to find the offset of image plane. Then by amending the relevant parts of metalwork (changing 1 d and 2 d in figure 2), made the image plane of illumination path (Object plane of imagery path) entirely consistent with the principle of total reflection, and the instrument can achieve the intended function.” Examiner note: “to find the offset” and “amending the relevant parts” are interpreted as determine a correction measure); and
d) using the correction measure to assemble the set of individual parts to form the optical system (page.5, paragraph 2, “… Then by amending the relevant parts of metalwork (changing d1 and d2 in figure 2), made the image plane of illumination path (Object plane of imagery path) entirely consistent with the principle of total reflection, and the instrument can achieve the intended function.” Page.6, last paragraph, “(3) Changing the air gap d virtually to match the f'-value … then realized both the f'-value strictly equal to each other by changing the length of spacer ring. Moreover, it can also make the object distance to be consistent by changing the focal distance.” Examiner note: the reference teaches determines correction values (e.g., offsets, air-gap values, spacer-ring length, metal work dimensions) based on measured deviations of optical components. A POSITA would understand that applying the correction values to the physical components necessarily results in configuring and arranging the induvial parts relative to on another so that the optical system achieves the intended functional relationship, which corresponds to assembling the set of individual parts to form the optical system.).
However, Xiao fails to teach, but Wang teaches measuring, using one or more sensors, a set of individual parts of an optical system (Page.1, “(1)Use a three-dimensional digitizer to perform physical measurement on the characteristics of optical parts …”.);
(page.1, “(3) …measure the positional relationship of the optical parts … and obtain the position data… (4)According to the measured position data of the optical parts … virtually assembled to obtain the virtual assembly …The actual position data of will be virtually assembled with the 3D mathematical model corresponding to the newly added part” Examiner note: Step (3)-(5) teaches taking multiple optical parts, measuring their position relationships, and then virtually assembled to obtain a virtual assembly of 3D mathematical model, repeatedly adding new parts with measured positions is interpreted as geometrically assembling more than one virtual part into a signal virtual assembly model, and the virtual assembly model is built according to the measured position data of parts, and position data between the required optical parts are used in the virtual assembly 3D mathematical mode. Therefore, the 3D virtual assembly contains virtual parts string together at measured (i.e., actual) positions as virtual actual positions in a virtually assembled state);
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao to incorporate the teachings of Wang, and apply measuring optical parts to obtain positional relationship data and virtually assembling multiple optical parts based on the measured position data to generate a virtual assembly model including actual positions of the parts in order to improve the accuracy of the assembly mode. In this case, Xiao teaches a CAD based optical modeling system for designing and adjusting optical components; Wang teaches measuring optical parts and virtually assembling the parts based on measured positional relationship data to generate a virtual assembly model including actual positions. The combination of teaching would predictably provide benefit of improving the accuracy of the assembly model by incorporating measured positional relationships of optical components into the CAD based design system.
However, Xiao and Wang fail to teach, but Sheng teaches electronic data in the form of matrices and generate an assembly model by applying construction data originating from a computer aided design (CAD) model to geometrically string together the virtualized individual parts using homogenous coordinates, wherein: the construction data defines at least one mechanical relationship between at least two of the virtualized individual parts (Page.1, Abstract, “With the continuous development of CAD technology and digital technology, virtual assembly has gradually become an indispensable function in CAD system.” Pages. 1-2, Content of the invention, “… Assembly information is formally expressed: the assembly constraint type and the geometric feature pair are defined ... the geometric characteristic … is characterized by the parameter equation containing the vector information … the parametric equations are solved to meet the assembly constraints … Through the homogeneous transformation matrix, the pose is transformed and moved to the designated position of the target model to complete the virtual assembly.” Page.2, “The assembly constraint applying unit is configured to impose assembly constraints that meet specific assembly requirements for corresponding geometric features of different models …” Page.5, “The assembly constraint type is the mutual spatial constraint of two geometric features … Typical assembly constraints in three-dimensional space include: coincidence; parallel; vertical; coaxial …” Page.10-12, “Homogeneous transformation matrix can be expressed as: …. then P'vec = MPvec.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… Solve the matrix M … After that, the matrix multiplication can be performed only on the vertices of each triangular patch of the assembly model …” Examiner note: the reference teaches defining assembly information including assembly constraint types and geometric feature pairs, which specify spatial and mechanical relationships between components. These assembly constraints are used to control how parts are positioned and assembled within a virtual assembly environment. The reference further teaches representing geometric relationships between parts using parametric equations containing vector information, and solving the parametric equations to satisfy the assembly constraints and applying the resulting data that defines relationships between parts to determine positions of the parts, and performing pose transformation using a homogeneous transformation matrix (e.g., P'vec = MPvec) and matrix multiplication to move parts to designated positions to complete virtual assembly model. Therefore, the reference teaches applying data that defines relationships between parts to geometrically assemble the virtualized parts using homogeneous coordinates, wherein the data defines at least one mechanical relationship between parts. The reference further teaches that the virtual assembly process is performed within a CAD environment, and a POSITA would understand that the data defining relationships between parts used for the assembly originates from CAD design data or a CAD model used to define component relationships, because assembly constraint types and geometric feature pairs are defined within CAD system as part of assembly information used to position and constrain components. Therefore, the data corresponds to construction data originating from a CAD model. The reference also teaches representing model geometry and transformations using matrices, which constitutes electronic data in matrix from associated with the virtual representation of parts.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Sheng, and apply defining assembly information that specifies spatial relationships between components and performing transformations to position components within a virtual assembly model in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of assembling virtualized components. In this case, Xiao teaches a CAD based optical modeling system for designing and adjusting optical components; Wang teaches measuring optical parts and generating a virtual assembly model incorporating measured positional relationships; Sheng teaches defining assembly constraints between components and applying constraints through transformation operations to position components and complete a virtual assembly model. The combination of teaching would provide benefit of enabling structured geometric assembly of virtualized parts based on defined relationships and transformations, thereby, improving the accuracy and consistency of assembling multiple optical components.
However, Xiao and Wang and Sheng fail to teach, but Pettersson teaches using the actual assembly model and a target assembly model to determine a correction measure, wherein the target assembly model comprises virtual target positions of one or more of the virtualized individual parts in the virtually assembled state ([0142], “Typically at the location for engineering, procurement and construction, the support structure and the plant are virtually assembled from the parts based on CAD data, and a first virtual assembly of the support structure and the plant is generated.” – Examiner note: i.e., target assembly model. [0144], “The support structure is then measured, and measured data and a second virtual assembly of the support structure based on the measured data of the support structure are generated.” – Examiner note: i.e., actual assembly model. [0145], “The second virtual assembly of the support structure based on the measured data is compared with the first virtual assembly based on the CAD data of the support structure.” – Examiner note: i.e., using the actual assembly model and a target assembly model. [0146], “From this comparison it is determined if the second virtual assembly does conform to the first virtual assembly and the specifications for the support structure, as a support structure assembly check.” – Examiner note: determine correction measure. The reference teaches generating a first virtual assembly based on CAD data and a second virtual assembly based on measured data, and comparing the two to determine whether the measured assembly confirms to the first virtual assembly and specifications. A POSITA would understand that a virtual assembly generated from the CAD data necessarily defines the intended geometric placement and positioning of each component within the assembled structure, which corresponds to virtual targe positions of the components in the assembled state.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng to incorporate the teachings of Pettersson, and apply generating a first virtual assembly model based on CAD data and a second virtual assembly model based on measured data, and comparing the two models to determine conformity of the assembled structure in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the assembly process. In this case, Xiao teaches a CAD based optical modeling system for designing and adjusting optical components; Wang teaches measuring optical parts and generating a virtual assembly model incorporating measured positional relationships; Sheng teaches defining assembly constraints between components and applying constraints through transformation operations to position components and complete a virtual assembly model; Pettersson teaches using generating a first virtual assembly model based on CAD data and a second virtual assembly model based on measured data and comparing the two models to determine whether the assembled structure conforms to intended geometric positions. The combination of teaching would predictably provide benefit of determining a correction measure by comparing a target assembly model containing virtual target positions with an actual assembly model containing measured positions, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of assembling multiple optical parts.
Claim 2, Xiao and Wang and Sheng fail to teach, but Pettersson teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the virtual actual position of a virtualized individual part and the virtual target position of the virtualized individual part to determine the correction measure ([0133], “Then, in order to check the second virtual assembly or the positioning of the parts, the outcome of these alternative steps is compared with the first virtual assembly. From this comparison and a comparison of measured and CAD part data it is determined if any parts do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications.” [0135], “Otherwise, a correction or an exchange of parts which do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications is initialized.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the comparison of positioning of the parts between first and second virtual assemblies includes comparing a position of an individual part).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng to incorporate the teachings of Pettersson, and apply comparison between parts position of first virtual assembly model based on CAD data with the parts position of second virtual assembly model based on the measured data in order to determine whether the assembled structure conforms to the intended geometric positions.
Claim 10, Xiao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the set of individual parts comprises more than 5 or 10 parts (Figs. 1-4).
Claim 11, Xiao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the correction measure comprises determining a gap between two of the individual parts, and
using the correction measure comprises inserting a spacer into the gap. (page.6, “(3) Changing the air gap d virtually to match the f'-value. For example, there are two 10 × telecentric objective lenses matched in Figure 4. The lens is the achromatic objective composed by two groups of doublet. Through optical design CAD calculated d and d' value of the actual lenses, and then realized both the f'-value strictly equal to each other by changing the length of spacer ring. Moreover, it can also make the object distance to be consistent by changing the focal distance.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the determined air gap d is the spacing between two optical elements (i.e., two individual parts), and that changed spacer ring as inserted into this gap to set and maintain the required separation distance).
Claim 15, Xiao teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising, after assembling the optical system, operating the optical system (page.5, paragraph.2, “ … made the image plane of illumination path (Object plane of imagery path) entirely consistent with the principle of total reflection, and the instrument can achieve the intended function.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that an optical instrument/system achieving the intended function necessarily includes operating the assemble optical system to perform its function).
Claim 18, Xiao and Wang and Sheng fail to teach, but Pettersson teaches The method of claim 17, further comprising:
comparing the virtual actual position of a specific one of the virtualized individual parts and the virtual target position of the specific one of the virtualized individual parts to determine the correction measure (See 112(b); [0133], “Then, in order to check the second virtual assembly or the positioning of the parts, the outcome of these alternative steps is compared with the first virtual assembly. From this comparison and a comparison of measured and CAD part data it is determined if any parts do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications.” [0135], “Otherwise, a correction or an exchange of parts which do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications is initialized.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that the comparison of positioning of the parts between first and second virtual assemblies includes comparing a position of a specific individual part).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng to incorporate the teachings of Pettersson, and apply comparison between a specific part position of first virtual assembly model based on CAD data with the specific part position of second virtual assembly model based on the measured data in order to determine whether the assembled structure conforms to the intended geometric positions.
Claim 21, Xiao fails to teach, but Wang teaches (New) The method of claim 1, wherein:
using the physical measurement data to virtualize the set of individual parts comprises processing the physical measurement data to generate a first set of virtualized data structures, wherein the first set of virtualized data structures defines a virtual geometric representation of the set of individual parts (Page.1, “(1)Use a three-dimensional digitizer to perform physical measurement on the characteristics of optical parts to obtain optical part characteristic data; (2)According to the measured feature data of the optical parts, use 3D modeling software to establish the corresponding 3D mathematical model of each optical part”. Examiner note: the reference teaches establishing a 3D mathematical model of each optical part, which corresponds to a first set of virtualize data structure and virtual geometric representation (i.e., 3D model)); and
the actual assembly model represents a virtual spatial configuration of the first set of virtualized data structures generated by (Page.1, “(3) … measure the positional relationship of the optical parts … obtain the position data …; (4) According to the measured position data … virtually assembled to obtain the virtual assembly …Three-dimensional mathematical model;” and “(6)… the virtual assembly three-dimensional mathematical simulation of all parts …”. Examiner note: the reference teaches a virtual assembly 3D mathematical model, which corresponds to a virtual spatial configuration because the assembled model defines the positions of the parts relative to each other).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao to incorporate the teachings of Wang, and apply measured optical parts to obtain positional relationship data and virtually assembling multiple optical parts based on the measured position data to generate a virtual assembly model including actual positions of the parts in order to improve the accuracy of the assembly mode. The combination of teaching would predictably provide benefit of improving the accuracy of the assembly model by incorporating measured positional relationships of optical components into the CAD based design system.
However, Xiao fail to teach applying the construction data to generate assembly model and geometrically string together the virtualized data structures according to the geometric interfaces.
Sheng teaches applying the construction data to generate assembly model and geometrically string together the virtualized data structures according to the geometric interfaces (Pages. 1-2, Content of the invention, “… Assembly information is formally expressed: the assembly constraint type and the geometric feature pair are defined ... the geometric characteristic … is characterized by the parameter equation containing the vector information … the parametric equations are solved to meet the assembly constraints … Through the homogeneous transformation matrix, the pose is transformed and moved to the designated position of the target model to complete the virtual assembly.” Page.5, “The assembly constraint type is the mutual spatial constraint of two geometric features … Typical assembly constraints in three-dimensional space include: coincidence; parallel; vertical; coaxial …” Examiner note: the reference teaches defining assembly information including assembly constraint types and geometric feature pairs, solving parametric equations to satisfy the assembly constraints, and applying the resulting data to transform and position parts to complete virtual assembly, which corresponds to applying construction data to generate an assembly model. The reference further teaches that assembly constraint types define spatial constraints between geometric features of parts, which corresponds to geometrically string together the virtualized data structures according to geometric interfaces.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Sheng, and apply defining assembly information that specifies spatial relationships between components and performing transformations to position components within a virtual assembly model in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of assembling virtualized components. The combination of teaching would provide benefit of enabling structured geometric assembly of virtualized parts based on defined relationships and transformations, thereby, improving the accuracy and consistency of assembling multiple optical components.
The elements of claims 19 and 20 are substantially the same as those of claims 1. Therefore, the elements of claims 19 and 20 are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claims 1. Further. The additional limitation of claim 19 and claim 20, “One or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by one or more processing devices to perform operations” and “A system, comprising: one or more processing devices; and one or more machine-readable hardware storage devices comprising instructions that are executable by the one or more processing devices to perform operations” see Xiao, page.1067, “ongoing research concentrates on active (also: automatic) alignment approaches that utilize computer-aided feedback. A POSITA would understand that computer-aided feedback system necessarily operate using processing devices, software instructions, memory/storage and control loops.
Claim(s) 3-9, 12-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schindlbeck (“Predictor-corrector framework for the sequential assembly of optical systems based on wavefront sensing,” published in 2018).
Claim 3, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
fixing a first virtualized individual part and a second virtualized individual part at their target positions from the target assembly model to generate the actual assembly model (page.10671, last two paragraphs, “we consider optical systems with serial topology (i.e. no beam splitting) consisting of n static optical components. A light source (i=0) and a detector (i=n+1) are placed in the optical train as first and last component, respectively. These components will be considered fixed without loss of generality throughout the remainder of this paper. Before assembling an optical system, a nominal optical system is given by an initial optical design laid out to satisfy certain desired requirements …” page.10672, first paragraph, “Each optical component is then assigned a (virtual) position XS,i … from the simulation which is pre-determined by the nominal design … since such uncertainties are non-negligible in real-world assembly processes, the actual positions deviate from the nominal positions.”);
geometrically stringing together intermediate virtualized individual parts between the first virtualized individual part and the second virtualized individual part (Fig.1. Flow diagram of the proposed predictor-corrector framework. Page.10671, “we consider optical systems with serial topology (i.e. no beam splitting) consisting of n static optical components.” Page.10672, 1. Placement of optical component, “The i-th optical component is brought into the optical train by virtual insertion into the simulation model and simultaneous physical insertion into the real system by a positioning system …” Examiner note: the reference teaches stepwise insertion along the optical axis between the fixed endpoints (i.e., light source and detector) is interpreted as geometrically stringing together the intermediate parts with first and last component); and
determining the correction measure based on virtual actual positions of at least two intermediate virtualized individual parts (page.10672, second paragraph, “By making this distinction between virtual and actual positions, we can define a hybrid model that comprises both quantities. For every assembly step i, the i-th component is identified while the remaining n - i components are virtual and are to be added in the upcoming assembly steps.” Page.10674, “In this paper we follow a nonlinear approach to solve (2). This can be realized by an optimization problem with a nonlinear merit function J [20, 22] that is minimized w.r.t. the current component position.” Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “In this step, the predicted wavefront from the previous step can be assessed by choosing an appropriate metric. If tolerance criteria from the previous step are not met, the virtual or real system needs to be altered accordingly (conformance testing & correction step). There are three options to do so: (I) Future correction … (II) Current correction: … (III) Past correction: …” Examiner note: the reference teaches using a hybrid model as generated actual assembly model that includes virtual actual positions of multiple intermediate components (i.e., at least two virtual parts) to compute a correction to the optical system).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply generation of a hybrid model including fixed endpoints and assigned virtual positions for intermediate components in order to predict wavefront behavior and perform conformance testing that computes positional corrections for optical components during assembly. The combination of teaching would provide the benefit of integrating prediction and correction into the assembly process using both virtual and real positional information, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of aligning the optical system.
Claim 4, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts or to a region between two adjacent individual parts (Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “(II) Current correction: Correct position of current optical component by calculation of a positional correction term and applying it to the system.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that correcting the position of a current optical component by calculating and applying a positional correction term corresponds to applying a correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply a calculated positional correction to individual component in order to adjust the position of components based on detected deviations, thereby improving assembly accuracy by enabling correction of individual component positioning within the assembly process.
Claim 5, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts or to a gap between two adjacent individual parts (Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “(II) Current correction: Correct position of current optical component by calculation of a positional correction term and applying it to the system.” Examiner note: A POSITA would understand that correcting the position of a current optical component by calculating and applying a positional correction term corresponds to applying a correction measure to a specific one of the individual parts).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply a calculated positional correction to individual component in order to adjust the position of components based on detected deviations, thereby improving assembly accuracy by enabling correction of individual component positioning within the assembly process.
Claim 6, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following holds:
one of the individual parts comprises an optical element (Page.10671, 2.1. Notation for hybrid model, “In this paper, we consider optical systems with serial topology (i.e. no beam splitting) consisting of n static optical components. A light source (i=0) and a detector (i=n+1) are placed in the optical train as first and last component …” Examiner note: detector is an optical element); and
an adjacent one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mechanical component, a mechatronic component and a bearing.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply identification of optical components (i.e., detector) as last part of the serial optical train in order to ensure that the virtual and actual placement of intermediate components can be corrected so that the assembled optical system conforms to the updated hybrid model.
Claim 7, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the following holds:
one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mirror, a lens element, an optical grating, a waveplate, a stop and a sensor (Page.10671, 2.1. Notation for hybrid model, “In this paper, we consider optical systems with serial topology (i.e. no beam splitting) consisting of n static optical components. A light source (i=0) and a detector (i=n+1) are placed in the optical train as first and last component …” Examiner note: detector is a type of sensor); and
an adjacent one of the individual parts comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a mechanical component, a mechatronic component and a bearing.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply identification of detector (i.e., a type of sensor) as last part of the serial optical train in order to use the detector’s wavefront measurement as the error signal for computing positional corrections so that the assembled optical system conforms to the updated hybrid model.
Claim 8, Xiao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein determining the correction measure comprises:
inserting a spacer between two of the individual parts (see Xiao, page.6, lines 9-10, “we use the virtual assembly technology again to solve this difficult problem … Through optical design CAD calculated d and d' value of the actual lenses, and then realized both the f'-value strictly equal to each other by changing the length of spacer ring.” Examiner note: i.e., inserting a different-sized spacer between parts); and
However, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach adjusting an operating point of a mechatronic component as constituent part of one of the individual parts.
Schindlbeck teaches adjusting an operating point of a mechatronic component as constituent part of one of the individual parts (Page.10672, 1. Placement of optical component, “The i-th optical component is brought into the optical train by virtual insertion into the simulation model and simultaneous physical insertion into the real system by a positioning system.” Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “If tolerance criteria from the previous step are not met, the virtual or real system needs to be altered accordingly (conformance testing & correction step) … (II) Current correction: … (III) Past correction: …” Page.10675, “Each lens is mounted inside a tip-tilt stage … XYZ stages …These positioning stages are equipped with metric taps which can be used to alter the position/orientation according to the calculations made by the predictor-corrector framework.” Examiner note: The XYZ stages and tip-tile stages are mechatronic components since they include mechanically adjustable elements whose positions and orientation are actively changed during the correction steps. A POSITA would understand that the positioning stages operate over a defined range of motion and are configured to be set to specific positions and/or orientations within that range to achieve alignment corrections. Therefore, altering the position and/or orientation of the stage to correct misalignment corresponds to selecting and adjusting an operating state (i.e., an operating point) of the mechatronic component.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply tip-tilt stage and XYZ stages adjustment as mechatronic component operating point adjustment in order to physically correct misalignment during the assembly process and ensure that the real optical components follow the updated hybrid model’s required positions.
Claim 9, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the mechatronic component comprises an actuator, and the correction measure is determined based on an available actuator travel of the actuator (Page.10675, “Each lens is mounted inside a tip-tilt stage … XYZ stages …These positioning stages are equipped with metric taps which can be used to alter the position/orientation according to the calculations made by the predictor-corrector framework.” Page.10675, “Reducing the prediction horizon by limiting the number of components to be considered in the future correction step; Reducing the adjustment DOF for the remaining components.” Page.10676, “these are mounted on top of XYZ stages with a maximum travel of ±2mm with a fine resolution of ±300 μm.” Examiner note: The XYZ and tip-tilt stages include actuators with defined travel limits (e.g., ±2mm). The predictor-corrector framework determines the correction based on the remaining adjustment range is interpreted as determining the correction measure based on available actuator travel).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply adjustment of the tip-tilt and XYZ stages based on the actuator travel available in the stages in order to determine feasible correction measures the remain within the mechanical adjustment range of the mechatronic component.
Claim 12, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the correction measure relates to at least a first degree of freedom and a second degree of freedom which is different from the first degree of freedom (Fig.2a; Page.10675, “Each lens is mounted inside a tip-tilt stage … XYZ stages …These positioning stages are equipped with metric taps which can be used to alter the position/orientation according to the calculations made by the predictor-corrector framework.” page. 10675, “The rigid interconnection of these stages results in a 5-DOF stage for each lens.” Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “If tolerance criteria from the previous step are not met, the virtual or real system needs to be altered accordingly (conformance testing & correction step).” Examiner note: The tip-tilt and XYZ positioning stages provide multiple mechanical degrees of freedom (e.g., tip-tile provide x and y as first and second degrees of freedom). Since corrections require adjusting these stages, the correction measure is relates to at least two different degrees of freedom).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply correction using the multiple degree of freedom tip-tilt and XYZ positioning stages in order to adjust optical component placement along different axes and orientations and ensure that the assembled system satisfies the updated hybrid model tolerance criteria.
Claim 13, Xiao and Wang and Sheng Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches The method of claim 12, wherein using the correction measure comprises applying the correction measure to:
a first individual part of the set of individual parts (Page.10673, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “(II) Current correction: Correct position of current optical component by calculation of a positional correction term and applying it to the system.” );
between a first pair of individual parts for the first degree of freedom and a second individual part; or
between a second pair of individual parts for the second degree of freedom.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply correction to the currently aligned optical component in order to adjust the component’s position so that the assembled optical system conforms to the updated hybrid model.
Claim 14, Xiao and Wang and Sheng Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck The method of claim 1, further comprising:
measuring, using the one or more sensors, the assembled optical system to provide physical assembly measurement data (Page. 10673, 2. Sensor measurements, “After the optical component i has been inserted, real measurements z from the wavefront sensor can be obtained.” Page.10674, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “If tolerance criteria from the previous step are not met, the virtual or real system needs to be altered accordingly (conformance testing & correction step).” Page.10675, (III) Past correction, “If (5), (6) and (7) are violated, the current optical component needs to be removed and the error needs to be corrected by going one step back in the assembly procedure.” Examiner note: the reference teaches iterative assembly cycles in which the partially or fully assembled optical system is repeatedly measured, producing updated measurement data for further correction);
comparing the physical assembly measurement data and the target assembly model to determine a further correction measure (page.10674, 5. Conformance testing and correction calculation, “… the predicted wavefront from the previous step can be assessed by choosing an appropriate metric. If tolerance criteria from the previous step are not met, the virtual or real system needs to be altered accordingly (conformance testing & correction step).” Examiner note: tolerance verification is a comparison between the newest measured data and the desire/target model, used to compute additional corrections); and
based on the further correction measure, aligning one or more of the individual parts (Page.10674, “(II) Current correction: Correct position of current optical component by calculation of a positional correction term and applying it to the system.” Page.10675, “These positioning stages are equipped with metric taps which can be used to alter the position/orientation according to the calculations made by the predictor-corrector framework.” Examiner note: alignment adjustment of the individual optical parts based on further correction values derived from iterative measurement and comparison).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply repeated measurement of the assembled optical system followed by comparison with the target model in order to determine additional correction values.
Claim 22, Xiao and Wang fails to teach, but Sheng teaches (New) The method of claim 21, wherein:
(Page.1, Abstract, “With the continuous development of CAD technology and digital technology, virtual assembly has gradually become an indispensable function in CAD system.” Pages. 1-2, Content of the invention, “… Assembly information is formally expressed: the assembly constraint type and the geometric feature pair are defined ... the geometric characteristic … is characterized by the parameter equation containing the vector information … the parametric equations are solved to meet the assembly constraints ...”. Page.5, “The assembly constraint type is the mutual spatial constraint of two geometric features … Typical assembly constraints in three-dimensional space include: coincidence; parallel; vertical; coaxial …” Page.10-12, “Homogeneous transformation matrix can be expressed as: …. then P'vec = MPvec.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
… Solve the matrix M … After that, the matrix multiplication can be performed only on the vertices of each triangular patch of the assembly model …” Examiner note: the reference teaches defining assembly relationships between parts using constraint types and parametric equations, and solving these equations to determine geometric positioning. The reference further teaches transforming part positions using a homogeneous transformation matrix P'vec = MPvec, which represents updating the geometric position of parts from an initial state to a transformed state. A POSITA would understand that the initial vector Pvec corresponds to a current or measured geometric representation, the transformed vector P'vec corresponds to an updated geometric representation satisfying assembly constraints. Therefore, the transformation P'vec = MPvec constitutes a computed geometric change, and the transformation is performed based on assembly constraints, which define target geometric relationships (i.e., target positions)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Sheng, and apply defining assembly constraints and solving parametric equations to determine spatial relationship between components and performing transformations to position components within a virtual assembly model in order to enable computation of updated geometric positions of virtualized parts that satisfy defined assembly relationships. The combination of teaching would provide benefit of computing precise geometric changes to virtualized parts based on defined spatial relationships and constraints, thereby enabling consistent and accurate positioning of components within a virtual assembly model and improving the accuracy and reliability of assembling multiple optical components.
However, Xiao and Wang and Sheng fail to teach, but Pettersson teaches determining the correction measure comprises generating a second set of virtualized data structures representing a corrected virtual state of the set of individual parts using the actual assembly model and the target assembly model, wherein the second set of virtualized data structures ([0133] “… in order to check the second virtual assembly or the positioning of the parts, the outcome of these alternative steps is compared with the first virtual assembly. From this comparison and a comparison of measured and CAD part data it is determined if any parts do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications.” [0135] “… a correction or an exchange of parts which do not conform to the generated CAD data and specifications is initialized.” [0136], “Then, in principle in a kind of loop of the workflow, the corrected or exchanged parts or at least interface sections of them are measured, and measured data of the corrected or exchanged parts are generated. This is again followed by virtually assembling the structure from the parts based on the measured data of the parts, including the corrected or exchanged parts, and generating a third virtual assembly; or by positioning the parts based on the measured data.”); and
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng to incorporate the teachings of Pettersson, and apply comparing second virtual assembly model based on measured data with first virtual assembly model based on CAD data and determine non-conforming parts to initiate correction and generate an updated virtual assembly reflecting corrected component positions in order to identify deviations between actual and target assembly configurations and update the virtual assembly to reflect corrected positioning of components. The combination of teaching would provide benefit of generating an updated virtual assembly model that reflects corrected geometric positions of components based on comparison with target configurations, thereby enabling accurate determination of correction measure and improving the accuracy and reliability of assembling multiple optical components.
However, Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson fail to teach, but Schindlbeck teaches using the correction measure to assemble the set of individual parts comprises generating an assembly instruction and providing the assembly instruction for output such that the assembly instruction causes physical assembly of the set of individual parts (Page.10670, Instruction, “The alignment of optical components is crucial for the assembly of optical systems in order to ensure certain performance criteria.” Page.10673, “Current correction: Correct position of current optical component by calculation of a positional correction term and applying it to the system. Page.10675, “These positioning stages are equipped with metric taps which can be used to alter the position/orientation according to the calculations made by the predictor-corrector framework.” Examiner note: the reference teaches calculating a positional correction term and applying the correction to the system to adjust component positions during assembly. A POSITA would understand that the calculated corrections define how components are to be positioned during assembly, which corresponds to instructions for assembling components).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiao and Wang and Sheng and Pettersson to incorporate the teachings of Schindlbeck, and apply calculating positional correction information and applying the calculated correction to adjust component positions during an assembly process in order to improve alignment accuracy and enable active correction during assembly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187