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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Particularly the amendments to the claims have forced a reinterpretation of the art and a new rejection to account for those amendments has been provided.
Further, in response to arguments about the official notice of claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, & 17 the applicant traverses this by arguing the legitimacy of the use of official notice but fails to adequately address why the official notice is improper. The MPEP states, “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner’s assertion of official notice would be inadequate.” Which the applicant has failed to do.
Further, in regard to Claims 5, 6, & 17, the limitation “wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 100µm, and wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 50µm” which constitutes a range and it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regard to Claims 10, 11, & 13, the limitation “wherein at least one method step is based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array; and wherein all of said method steps are based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array” the examiner notes that he has adequately explained through his motivation statement why this is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art and further, the applicant’s assertion that they invented the FPGA to do calculations such as those disclosed is not plausible. Just to solidify this fact the examiner is providing the Wikipedia entry on FPGAs dated before the inventors effective filing date that in the first paragraph states they are functionally equivalent to ASICs in the first paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (PGPub 2018/0153395) (Goto) in view of Fercher (PGPub 2003/0043381) (Fercher) and further in view of Urashima et al (PGPub 2012/0285936) (Urashima).
Regarding Claims 1, & 19, Goto discloses an image processing method (fig. 4) employing an optical coherence tomographer (OCT), comprising:
obtaining measurement (S101, Paragraph 67) data based on interference of sample light guided in a sample arm (50, fig. 1) and reference light guided in a reference arm (60, fig. 1), the sample arm and the reference arm differing in dispersion (Paragraph 41). The dispersion differs which is why there are adjustment mechanisms to fix it;
the measurement data comprising an object signal and a background signal superimposed on the object signal (Paragraph 55). The background signal is the noise in the measurement hence the need to generate what the background signal is and remove it from the measurement;
the object signal and the background signal being subject to different dispersion. As explained part of the background signal is fixed pattern noise (FPN) (Paragraph 5) which is light back reflected from various optics in the optics train and that interferes with the reference light causing noise in the measurement signal. Thus, because the path length is different the dispersion will be different between the background signal and the object signal since total dispersion is path dependent;
performing a first transformation (Fourier, S102) on the measurement data using a control unit (40, Paragraph 52) of the measuring device, the first transformation being targeted at the background signal to obtain a height signal (Paragraph 86);
wherein the control unit (40) has at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the control unit having a processor operatively coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable program code portions (Paragraph 52);
determining background components (S107) in the height signal using the control unit of the measuring device (Paragraph 86);
compensating the background components (S108) in the height signal using the control unit of the measuring device to obtain a background-compensated height signal (Paragraph 94);
performing an inverse transformation (S109) comprising back-transforming the background- compensated height signal (Epure) using the control unit of the measuring device to obtain background- compensated measurement data (Paragraph 96, Gpure);
performing dispersion compensation for the object signal (Paragraph 41) to obtain dispersion-compensated and background-compensated measurement data;
performing a second transformation (Fig. 5, S203) comprising transforming the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated measurement data using the control unit of the measuring device to obtain a dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal (Paragraph 103);
Goto fails to explicitly disclose performing program code-based dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background-compensated measurement data using the control unit of the measuring device; and controlling the machining of the workpiece by the control unit of the measuring device based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal;
However, Fercher discloses performing program code-based dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background-compensated measurement data using the control unit of the measuring device (Paragraphs 15-21);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Goto with performing program code-based dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background-compensated measurement data using the control unit of the measuring device because this saves the cost of complex dispersion compensating optics;
Goto as modified by Fercher still fails to explicitly disclose controlling the machining of the workpiece by the control unit of the measuring device based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal;
However, Urashima teaches using a SS-OCT to measure the penetration depth of a welded part (Paragraph 31) and controlling the machining of the workpiece by the control unit of the measuring device based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal (Fig. 6, S5, Paragraphs 75-77);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher with controlling the machining of the workpiece by the control unit of the measuring device based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal because automation controlled by computers of various functions of optical devices is commonplace and used to speed up measurement times. Additionally, using the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal to control the welder in Urashima would provide a more accurate measurement of the penetration depth and thus improve the function of the apparatus.
The limitations of claim 19 is also met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein said compensating comprises subtracting a least a portion of the background components from the height signal (Fig. 4, S108, Paragraph 94).
Regarding Claims 3, & 20, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses the step of performing dispersion compensation for the background signal before the first transformation. The dispersion is compensated before the measurements are taken thus this step order is met (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 4, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein compensating comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) clipping and (ii) overwriting data points of the height signal for height values not exceeding a predetermined threshold value (Fig. 5, S201, Paragraph 102). Windowing is a function which sets values to zero outside a given interval. Thus, that would be clipping and meet this limitation.
Regarding Claims 5, & 6, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 100µm, and wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 50µm;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima with wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 100µm, and wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 50µm because the point of windowing is to clip out and only process data relevant to the measurement and the threshold chosen for the minimum height values would be chosen based upon whether those height values could be potentially from the sample or just spurious values from noise that could not be relevant to the measurement.
Regarding Claim 7, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of: (i) the first transformation (Paragraph 86), (ii) the second transformation (Paragraph 103), and (iii) the inverse transformation (Paragraph 96), comprise a Fourier transformation. All three are Fourier transformations.
Regarding Claim 8, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of: (i) the first transformation, (ii) the second transformation, and (iii) the inverse transformation, comprise a fast Fourier transformation (Paragraph 68).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, & 13, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one method step is based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array; and wherein all of said method steps are based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima with wherein at least one method step is based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array; and wherein all of said method steps are based on calculations which are carried out in at least one field programmable gate array because FPGAs are well known and common processors that would be functionally equivalent to the processors disclosed in Goto and would be chosen based on cost and availability and for allowing a greater flexibility in programmability than an ASIC.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Fercher and Urashima and further in view of Marks et al (Daniel L. Marks, Amy L. Oldenburg, J. Joshua Reynolds, and Stephen A. Boppart, "Autofocus algorithm for dispersion correction in optical coherence tomography," Appl. Opt. 42, 3038-3046 (2003)) (Marks).
Regarding Claim 9, Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing dispersion compensation for the object signal comprises multiplying the background-compensated measurement data by a dispersion correction curve;
However, Marks discloses wherein performing dispersion compensation for the object signal comprises multiplying the background-compensated measurement data by a dispersion correction curve (Shown in eqs. 7 & 8, Section 3, Algorithm Discrete-time Implementation);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima with wherein performing dispersion compensation for the object signal comprises multiplying the background-compensated measurement data by a dispersion correction curve because algorithmic correction of dispersion reduces the complexity of the optics thus reducing cost and vulnerability to error and also allows for faster measurement of the data since one doesn’t have to wait for the adjustment of the optics to get a dispersion compensated measurement.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (PGPub 2018/0153395) (Goto) in view of Fercher (PGPub 2003/0043381) (Fercher) and further in view of Urashima et al (PGPub 2012/0285936) (Urashima) and still further in view of Cable et al (PGPub 2014/0028997) (Cable).
Regarding Claim 12, Goto discloses an image processing device (figs. 1 & 4) employing an optical coherence tomographer (OCT), comprising:
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a sample beam and a reference beam, comprising;
a sample arm (50, Fig. 1) in which the sample beam is optically guidable;
a reference (60, Fig. 1) arm in which the reference beam is optically guidable;
a detector (30, Fig. 1) adapted to perform optical coherence tomography measurements by causing the sample beam and the reference beam to interfere to generate measurement data (S101, Paragraph 67); and
a control unit (40, Fig. 1) having at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein, the control unit having a processor operatively coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable program code portions to (Paragraph 52):
obtain measurement data (S101, Paragraph 67) based on interference of sample light guided in a sample arm and reference light guided in a reference arm, the sample arm and the reference arm differing in dispersion (Paragraph 41);
the measurement data comprising an object signal and a background signal superimposed on the object signal (Paragraph 55);
the object signal and the background signal being subject to different dispersion. As explained part of the background signal is fixed pattern noise (FPN) (Paragraph 5) which is light back reflected from various optics in the optics train and that interferes with the reference light causing noise in the measurement signal. Thus, because the path length is different the dispersion will be different between the background signal and the object signal since total dispersion is path dependent;
perform a first transformation (Fourier, S102) on the measurement data, the first transformation being targeted at the background signal to obtain a height signal (Paragraph 86);
determine background components (S107) in the height signal (Paragraph 86);
compensate the background components (S108) in the height signal to obtain a background-compensated height signal (Paragraph 94);
perform an inverse transformation (S109) comprising back-transforming the background- compensated height signal (Epure) to obtain background-compensated measurement data (Paragraph 96, Gpure);
perform a second transformation (Fig. 5, S203) comprising transforming the dispersion- compensated and background-compensated measurement data using the control unit of the measuring device to obtain a dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal (Paragraph 103); and
Goto fails to explicitly disclose the detector is a spectrometer; perform dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background- compensated measurement data to obtain dispersion-compensated and background- compensated measurement data; and control the machining of the workpiece by the machining system based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal;
However, Fercher discloses perform dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background- compensated measurement data to obtain dispersion-compensated and background- compensated measurement data (Paragraphs 15-21);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Goto with perform dispersion compensation for the object signal of the background- compensated measurement data to obtain dispersion-compensated and background- compensated measurement data because this saves the cost of complex dispersion compensating optics;
Goto as modified by Fercher still fails to explicitly disclose the detector is a spectrometer; and control the machining of the workpiece by the machining system based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal;
However, Urashima teaches using a SS-OCT to measure the penetration depth of a welded part (Paragraph 31) and controlling the machining of the workpiece by the control unit of the measuring device based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal (Fig. 6, S5, Paragraphs 75-77);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher with control the machining of the workpiece by the machining system based, at least in part, on the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal because automation controlled by computers of various functions of optical devices is commonplace and used to speed up measurement times. Additionally, using the dispersion-compensated and background-compensated height signal to control the welder in Urashima would provide a more accurate measurement of the penetration depth and thus improve the function of the apparatus;
Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima still fails to explicitly disclose the detector is a spectrometer;
However, Cable shows an OCT which utilizes a spectrometer as a detector (Fig. 1B, Paragraph 4);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Goto as modified by Fercher and Urashima with a spectrometer as a detector because SD-OCT is functionally equivalent to SS-OCT and would be chosen for such advantages as being able to simultaneously measure an entire spectral signal simultaneously which reduces noise caused by shifting atmospheric conditions or vibration.
Regarding Claim 14, Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein said compensating comprises subtracting a least a portion of the background components from the height signal (Fig. 4, S108, Paragraph 94).
Regarding Claim 15, Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses the step of performing dispersion compensation for the background signal before the first transformation. The dispersion is compensated before the measurements are taken thus this step order is met (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 16, Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable discloses the aforementioned. Further, Goto discloses wherein compensating comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) clipping and (ii) overwriting data points of the height signal for height values not exceeding a predetermined threshold value (Fig. 5, S201, Paragraph 102). Windowing is a function which sets values to zero outside a given interval. Thus, that would be clipping and meet this limitation.
Regarding Claim 17, Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 100µm, and wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 50µm;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable with wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 100µm, and wherein the threshold value is a maximum of 50µm because the point of windowing is to clip out and only process data relevant to the measurement and the threshold chosen for the minimum height values would be chosen based upon whether those height values could be potentially from the sample or just spurious values from noise that could not be relevant to the measurement.
Regarding Claim 18, Goto as modified by Fercher, Urashima, and Cable discloses the aforementioned. Further, Urashima discloses a measuring device according to claim 12; and
a machining device comprising a machining beam source (107, Paragraph 21, Fig. 1) configured to generate the machining beam and machining beam optics (109) configured to at least one selected from the group consisting of project and focus the machining beam onto the workpiece (Paragraph 27).
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 16, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights