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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 11/07/2022. Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, from the bottom, line 5 “Y-axis and/or Y-axis” should be – Y-axis and/or Z-axis —
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: " an interference length measuring module", “a two-dimensional angle measuring module”, “a heterodyne frequency generating module, the interference length measuring module” in claim 1-5, 9, 12-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre¬ AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig.1; Figs. 21-22 Ref 17.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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.
In claim 1, the recitations “simultaneously measure,” light “carrying” geometric error information, beams being “superposed together in a spatial position,” and a reflector operating “so as to realize” certain effects, including that optical path and frequency drift is “proportional” to displacement, render the scope of the claim unclear. These terms are functional or relative in nature and lack objective boundaries or structural definitions sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claim 9, the phrases “keeps changing,” “only caused by,” “polarizing state, frequency and phase are not changed,” and beams being “superposed together in a space” are indefinite. The recitation that a spot offset is “only caused by” a particular factor is an unverifiable causation limitation, and the absolute statement that frequency and phase “are not changed” lacks defined conditions or tolerances. These limitations fail to provide clear, objective scope.
In claim 17, the recitations “the laser is active in an optical circuit,” and “detected separately,” which do not clearly define structural limitations or the manner in which the beams are routed and detected. The phrase “versatile”, “eliminates a prior art beam-turning unit” and “for the first time in the world” are statements of intended result or promotional language and do not constitute structural limitations. Such relative and promotional language does not particularly point out the claimed subject matter. Additionally, the recitation that “the system eliminates a prior art beam-turning unit” constitutes a statement of intended advantage or result rather than a structural limitation, and it is unclear what structural features of the claimed system achieve such elimination. As drafted, this language renders the scope of the claim ambiguous.
In claim 4,” the 1st to the Nth band-pass filters and the 1st to the Nth phase detectors” in lines 3-4 lack antecedent basis.
In claim 8,” the third photodetector and the fifth photodetector”, “the fourth photodetector” in lines 2-4, 6 lack antecedent basis.
In claim 11,” the second non-polarizing beam splitter”, “the first polarizer”, “the first non-polarizing beam splitter”, “the third photodetector” in lines 5, 7-8, 10, 12 lack antecedent basis.
In claim 12,” the third non-polarizing beam splitter”, “the second polarizer” in lines 17-20 lack antecedent basis.
In claim 13,” the second non-polarizing beam splitter”, “the non-polarizing beam splitter”, “the first polarizer”, “the 1st to the Nth band-pass filters”, “the 1st to the Nth phase detectors” in lines 10, 19, 21, 23-24 lack antecedent basis.
In claim 15,” the third photodetector” in lines 9, 13 lack antecedent basis.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10, 16 are rejected due to claim dependency.
Claims 3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
It is unclear from the language of claim 3 the following:
Regarding claim 3, The system according to claim 1, wherein the laser emitting module generates a dual frequency laser; the interference length measuring module comprises a third non-polarizing beam splitter, a second polarizer, and a fourth photodetector. Claim 1 does not have a first/second non-polarizing beam splitter and a third photodetector.
It is unclear from the language of claim 4 the following:
Regarding claim 4, The system according to claim 1, wherein the laser emitting module comprises a multi wavelength laser light source and a heterodyne frequency generating module, the interference length measuring module comprises the 1st to the Nth band-pass filters and the 1st to the Nth phase detectors, where N is a natural number greater than or equal to 3; and the polarization beam splitter is replaced with a second non-polarizing beam splitter. Claim 1 does not have a first non-polarizing beam splitter
It is unclear from the language of claim 6 the following:
Regarding claim 6, The system according to claim 1, in which a rolling angle measuring is added so as to simultaneously measuring 6DOF GEs, wherein adding a third λ/4 wave plate at a target mirror unit end. It is not clear if it the same target mirror unit in claim 1 or a different one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 20170167849 A1; Hereinafter “Feng 1”).
Regarding claim 17, Feng 1 teaches a system for simultaneously measuring up to 6DOF LGEs by a laser (Para 1 and 33), wherein
the laser is active in an optical circuit to emit up to 6 beams (Fig. 1, para 31, The dual-frequency laser 101 generates two light beams, see also, fig. 2 para 37), each of which is split into a measuring light and a reference light (Fig. 1, para 37, The reflected light 222 from the polarization beam splitter 205 is directed through the beam splitter 209, and is reflected by the reflector 208 to serve as the reference beam for interferometric length measurement. The transmitted light 221 from the polarization beam splitter 205 is directed into the reflector 302 in the moving unit 3 ), the reference light directly hits on a photodetector , without passing through a target object (Fig. 1, a portion of the reference light is directly hits on a photodetector , without passing through a target object (Fig. 1, para 33 moving target unit 3)); while the measuring light indirectly hits on the photodetector after passing through the target object (Fig. 1, para 37, The transmitted light 221 from the polarization beam splitter 205 is directed into the reflector 302 in the moving unit 3 (target), and the reflected light from the reflector 302 serves as the signal beam that his the detector 220);
on the photodetector, one light spot of the reference light and another light spot of the measuring light are detected separately, so that a light spot offset of the measuring light relative to the reference light is determined on the photodetector; thus, a relative straightness error, a relative position error, or a relative angle error of the target object is calculated (Fig. 1, para 37, The position error Z of the moving unit 3 along a machine or a linear guide is obtained by the beat frequency signal, which is generated by the interference between the reference beam and the signal beam on the photodetector 220 in the fixed sensor head 2. );
in which the measuring light is split into a transmitted light for measuring straightness and positioning errors and a reflected light for measuring angle errors (Fig. 1, para 37, The position error Z of the moving unit 3 along a machine or a linear guide is obtained by the beat frequency signal, which is generated by the interference between the reference beam and the signal beam on the photodetector 220 in the fixed sensor head 2; para 40 he photodetector 218 in the fixed sensor head 2 receives the reflected light from the beam splitter 211, and then, the horizontal straightness error ΔX2 and the vertical straightness error ΔY2 of the reflector 302 are obtained; para 41 The transmitted light from the beam splitter 211 in the fixed sensor head 2 is reflected by the mirror 213 and is focused onto the photodetector 219 by the lens 214. Then, the beam angular drift α′ and β′ with respect to the emergent light from the collimating lens 201 are obtained.), whereby the system eliminates a prior art beam-turning unit which must be manually turned so as to measure each of the 6DOF one by one; and the system becomes a versatile for measuring up to 6DOF LGEs at the same time for the first time in the world (This language recites an intended result and does not impose additional structural limitations on the claimed system. The structural elements necessary to perform simultaneous multi-DOF measurement are already disclosed by Feng 1.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior, including Feng et al. (US 20190063910 A1; Hereinafter “Feng”) and of Feng et al. (US 20170167849 A1; Hereinafter “Feng 1”), fails to teach or suggest the specific integrated optical architecture and measurement methodology recited in independent claims 1 and 9.
Feng discloses a six-degree-of-freedom laser measurement system including a polarizing beam splitter (e.g., elements 205, 206), a fixed reflector (204), and multiple photodetectors arranged to measure straightness, positioning, and angular errors of a rotating shaft. However, Feng distributes measurement functions across multiple optical paths and detectors and does not disclose a measuring unit in which a single polarizing beam splitter is configured to perform (1) beam splitting into measuring and reference beams, (2) beam combining for interference-based position measurement, and (3) beam separating for two-dimensional angle measurement, as required by claim 1. Further, Feng does not disclose a target mirror unit comprising a beam splitter and a reflector arranged such that a transmitted measuring light is reflected back 180° toward its original direction while a reflected portion simultaneously carries two-dimensional angle information back to the measuring unit in the integrated manner recited.
Feng 1 discloses an interferometric measuring system employing beam splitters and reflectors for distance measurement. However, Feng 1 does not teach a target mirror unit including both a beam splitter and a reflector that cooperatively return a transmitted measuring beam and separately provide an angle-measuring beam, nor does Feng 1 disclose the claimed polarization-based switching of transmitting and reflecting states via first and second λ/4 wave plates to enable combined straightness, position, and angle measurements within a single optical configuration. Feng 1 also does not teach or suggest the specific method steps of claim 9, including measuring straightness based on spot offset of a combined beam, measuring position via heterodyne interference using the same measuring light, and measuring angular error via a reflected beam from the target mirror beam splitter within the same coordinated system.
Accordingly, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed integrated configuration and method for simultaneously measuring multiple degrees of freedom using the specific polarization-controlled beam splitting, combining, and separating architecture recited in claims 1 and 9.
As the result, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lau et al. (US 6049377 A), teaches Five-axis/six-axis Laser Measuring System
Eom et al. (US 20030030816 A1), teaches Nonlinearity Error Correcting Method and Phase Angle Measuring Method for Displacement Measurement in Two-frequency Laser Interferometer and Displacement Measurement System Using the Same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645