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
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 6/25/2026. Claims 18-20 are new, claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-14, and 16-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0393258 ("Wieser ‘258") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0329065 ("Pacala").
Regarding claim 1, Wieser ‘258 discloses an inspection system (10) for analyzing defects in a product, the inspection system comprising
a projection device (32, Fig. 1),
an optical detection device (28, Fig. 1), and
a processing device (not shown, see paragraph [0044]),
the projection device (32, Fig. 1) having
an illuminating unit (33, Fig. 1, paragraph [0033]) and a spectrometer member (36, Fig. 1 acts as a spectrometer) configured to split white light into its spectral components (paragraph [0042]) and project a multichromatic light beam (37, Fig. 1) thus formed from monochromatic light beams (Abstract, paragraphs [0008], [0010]) onto a product (not shown, paragraph [0042]) at an angle of incidence β (β, Fig. 1),
the optical detection device (28, Fig. 1) having a detection unit (29, Fig. 1, paragraph [0042]) comprising
a camera (27, Fig. 1) and an objective (30, Fig. 1),
the camera (27, Fig. 1) being configured to detect the multichromatic light beam (37, Fig. 1, paragraph [0044]) reflected on the product in a detection plane (46, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043]) of the detection unit (29, Fig. 1),
the detection plane (46, Fig. 1) being perpendicular to a product surface (38, Fig. 1) of the product,
wherein the illuminating unit has at least two light-emitting diodes disposed in a row (paragraph [0033]: “The illumination device may be composed of a number of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed in rows or a matrix.”) and an exit aperture (34, Fig. 1) extending along the row (Fig. 1), wherein the exit aperture (34, Fig. 1) is a common exit aperture extending continuously along the row (see Fig. 1).
Wieser ‘258 does not disclose that the illuminating unit further comprises, for each light-emitting diode, an aperture member having an aperture at least partially formed by a stack of plane plates, and a lens assembly associated with the respective light-emitting diode, the lens assembly comprising two lenses.
However, Pacala discloses an illuminating unit (1100, Fig. 11, and see Figs. 12-15C) that further comprises, for each light-emitting diode (1104, Fig. 11, paragraph [0128]), an aperture member (for example, 1109, Fig. 11), and a lens assembly (1120, 1121, Fig. 11) associated with the respective light-emitting diode (1104, Fig. 11), the lens assembly comprising two lenses (1120, 1121, Fig. 11 are two lenses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the illuminating unit include an aperture member and a lens assembly comprising two lenses for each light-emitting diode as disclosed by Pacala in Fig. 11 in the device of Wieser ‘258 in order to improve the brightness of beams to provide enhanced spot illumination, while at the same time improving the spatial resolution of the measured image.
Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala Figs. 11-15C does not explicitly disclose that the apertures are at least partially formed by a stack of plane plates.
However, in Fig. 18D, Pacala discloses an example of an aperture layer (1840, Fig. 18D) that is at least partially formed by a stack of plane plates (1845, 1846, Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the aperture using a stack of plane plates as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala in order to follow the contour of light rays to reduce stray light.
Regarding claim 2, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Wieser ‘258 further discloses that the illuminating unit (33, Fig. 1) is configured to establish a homogenous intensity distribution of reflected multichromatic light (paragraph [0033]) along the detection plane (paragraphs [0033], [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Pacala further discloses that the at least two lenses (1120, 1121, Fig. 11 are two lenses) are configured to converge or focus the white light (see converged light exiting 1121, Fig. 11, paragraph [0134]) of the light-emitting diode (1104, Fig. 11).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to include a two lenses as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in order to converge/diverge emitting light as desired.
Regarding claim 12, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Pacala further discloses that a focal point of the lens assembly (1120, 1121, Fig. 11) is formed in the exit aperture (1109, Fig. 11).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to form the focal point at the exit aperture as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in order to converge emitting light as desired.
Regarding claim 13, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Wieser ‘258 further discloses that the exit aperture (34, Fig. 1) is formed by an uninterrupted air gap (see Fig. 1, a diaphragm is formed by an uninterrupted air gap).
Regarding claim 14, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Wieser ‘258 further discloses that the spectrometer member (36, Fig. 1) is disposed adjacent to and immediately downstream of the illuminating unit (33, Fig. 1) in the direction of the beam path (see Fig. 1, paragraph [0042]) of the projection device (32, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Wieser ‘258 further discloses that the projection device (32, Fig. 1) is configured to emit light of the wavelength ranges red, green, blue (RGB), infrared (IR), or ultraviolet (UV) (see paragraphs [0018], [0033] and claim 9), and the camera (27, Fig. 1) is configured to detect said light (claim 9).
Regarding claim 17, Wieser ‘258 discloses a method for analyzing defects in a product, the method using an inspection system (26, Fig. 1), the inspection system comprising
a projection device (32, Fig. 1),
an optical detection device (28, Fig. 1), and
a processing device (not shown, see paragraph [0044]),
an illuminating unit (33, Fig. 1, paragraph [0033]) and a spectrometer member (36, Fig. 1) of the projection device being used to split white light into its spectral components and project a multichromatic light beam (37, Fig. 1) thus formed from monochromatic light beams (Abstract, paragraphs [0008], [0010]) onto a product (not shown, paragraph [0042]) at an angle of incidence β (β, Fig. 1),
the optical detection device (28, Fig. 1) having a detection unit (29, Fig. 1) comprising a camera (27, Fig. 1) and an objective (30, Fig. 1),
the multichromatic light beam (37, Fig. 1) being reflected on the product in a detection plane (46, Fig. 1) of the detection unit (29, Fig. 1), the detection plane being perpendicular, preferably orthogonal (see Fig. 1, and Abstract, paragraph [0035]), to a product surface (38, Fig. 1) of the product,
the light beam (37, Fig. 1) being detected by the camera (37, Fig. 1, paragraph [0044]),
wherein at least two light-emitting diodes disposed in a row (paragraph [0033]: “The illumination device may be composed of a number of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) disposed in rows or a matrix.”) and an exit aperture (34, Fig. 1) of the illuminating unit extending along the row (see Fig. 1) are used to establish a homogenous intensity distribution of reflected multichromatic light along the detection plane (paragraphs [0033], [0043]); and emitting the light via a common exit aperture (34, Fig. 1) formed by an uninterrupted air gap (see Fig. 1) extending continuously along the row (see Fig. 1).
wherein using the illuminating unit (26) comprises, for each light-emitting diode (27), directing the white light through an aperture member (29) having an aperture (30) formed by a stack (38) of plane plates (33, 34, 35, 36, 37), and through a lens assembly (39) comprising two lenses (40, 41),
Wieser ‘258 does not disclose that using the illuminating unit comprises, for each light-emitting diode, directing the white light through an aperture member having an aperture formed by a stack of plane plates, and through a lens assembly comprising two lenses.
However, Pacala discloses an illuminating unit (1100, Fig. 11, and see Figs. 12-15C) that comprises, for each light-emitting diode (1104, Fig. 11, paragraph [0128]), directing the light through an aperture member (for example, 1109, Fig. 11), and through a lens assembly (1120, 1121, Fig. 11) comprising two lenses (1120, 1121, Fig. 11 are two lenses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the illuminating unit include an aperture member and a lens assembly comprising two lenses for each light-emitting diode as disclosed by Pacala in Fig. 11 in the device of Wieser ‘258 in order to improve the brightness of beams to provide enhanced spot illumination, while at the same time improving the spatial resolution of the measured image.
Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala Figs. 11-15C does not explicitly disclose that the apertures are formed by a stack of plane plates.
However, in Fig. 18D, Pacala discloses an example of an aperture layer (1840, Fig. 18D) that is formed by a stack of plane plates (1845, 1846, Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the aperture using a stack of plane plates as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala in order to follow the contour of light rays to reduce stray light.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0155574 ("Fisch").
Regarding claim 5, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, and Pacala further discloses that the aperture member (for example, 1840, Figs. 18C-18D or 1940, Figs. 19C-19D) has a three-dimensional aperture which has a widening cross section (see any of Fig. 18C-18D, 19C-19D).
Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala does not explicitly disclose that the aperture members are widening from the light-emitting diode in the direction of a beam path of the projection device.
However, Fisch discloses aperture member (24, Fig. 1) has a three-dimensional aperture (24 is a three-dimensional aperture) which has a cross section widening (paragraph [0033]) from the light-emitting diode (22, Fig. 1 is comprised of emitters 54, Fig. 3, see paragraph [0058]) in the direction of a beam path of the projection device (20, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a widening three-dimensional aperture as disclosed by Pacala and Fisch in the device of Wieser ‘258 in order to increase the spatial uniformity of the radiation.
Regarding claim 6, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of Fisch discloses the inspection system according to claim 5, and Pacala further discloses that the respective apertures of the aperture members (for example, 1109, Fig. 11) are adjacent to one another (see any of Figs. 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include adjacent apertures as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of Fisch in order to achieve high degree of uniformity of the irradiance.
Regarding claim 7, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of Fisch discloses the inspection system according to claim 5, and Pacala further discloses that the aperture has the shape of a pyramid (see any of Figs. 18C-18D, 19C-19D, aperture has pyramid shape).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to shape the aperture as desired, including a pyramid as disclosed by Pacala in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of Fisch in order to reduce the angle of emission of light at the exit aperture.
Claims 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala further in view of Taiwanese Patent Publication No. TW I396824 B ("Wieser ‘824").
Regarding claim 18, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the aperture member is disposed between the light-emitting diode and the lens assembly in a beam path of the projection device.
However, Wieser ‘824 discloses that the aperture member (50, Fig. 10a) is disposed between the light-emitting diode (40, Fig. 10a) and the lens assembly (43, 44, Fig. 10a) in a beam path (30, Fig. 10a) of the projection device (Fig. 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place the aperture member between the light-emitting diode and the lens assembly as disclosed by Wieser ‘824 in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala in order to limit the amount of stray light and divergence of the light before entering the lens which in turn improves beam uniformity.
Regarding claim 20, Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala discloses the inspection system according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the two lenses of the lens assembly are spaced apart and separated from each other.
However, Wieser ‘824 discloses that the two lenses (43, 44, Fig. 10a) of the lens assembly (43, 44, Fig. 10a) are spaced apart and separated from each other (see Fig. 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have two separate and spaced apart lenses as disclosed by Wieser ‘824 in the device of Wieser ‘258 in view of Pacala in order to collimate light while suppressing parallax effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention as claimed, specifically in combination with: the plane plates of the stack are in contact with one another, and no plane plate of the stack extends across the aperture, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference Pacala teaches various aperture layers for a receiver channel, and that the benefits of the aperture are with regard to a receiver, the office provides no reasoning as to why a stacked-plate configuration would offer any corresponding advantage in a light emitter, which emits rather than receives light. Applicant further argues that the combination of references was guided by the claims rather than by any teaching in Pacala itself.
In response to the argument that the benefits of an aperture in a receiver do not correspond to an emitter, the Examiner disagrees. An aperture provides similar optical benefits in both receivers and emitters. Specifically for an emitter, an aperture can block light emitted at wide or undesirable angles, which therefore can reduce stray light that can cause crosstalk or reflections. Regardless of whether the light is incoming or outgoing, an aperture helps filter and shape the light in a desired way, which in turn improves the optical performance of the system.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claims 5-7, Applicant states that characterizing the pyramid shape as a design choice does not establish obviousness. However, the Examiner points out that absent persuasive evident that the particular shape of the aperture is significant, then it is a matter of choice, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Pyramid-shaped apertures are well-known in the art and are commonly used in emitters, therefore they are an obvious design choice.
As discussed above, the rejection is proper.
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 MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights