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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The crossed out references on the IDS are not considered because the publication dates listed on the IDS do not match the actual publication dates of the references.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim elements require adequate spacing. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See CFR 1.75(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear as to what the acronym “SMD” stand for, as it is not defined in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schug et al. (EP 3,051,312), hereinafter Schug.
In re. claim 1, Schug teaches an optical triangulation sensor for detecting objects in a monitoring area, having a transmitter (12) emitting transmitted light beams (parallel beams from optic system (14)) (pg. 5, para starting with “From a light…”), having a receiver assembly with at least two receivers (28A, 28B) arranged side by side in a triangulation direction at a distance from the transmitter (fig. 1), wherein transmitted light beams from the transmitter are reflected by an object (18) in the monitoring area and are guided to the receiver assembly as received light beams (34) (fig. 1), and having a control and evaluation unit (38) in which an object detection signal is generated depending on receiver signals of the receivers (figs. 1 and 3) (pg. 6, 2nd para.), characterized in that there is a gap (spacing shown in fig. 1) between the receivers (fig. 1) (spacing between detection regions) (pg. 6, 1st para.), and in that a receiving optical system (22A, 22B) is arranged upstream of the receiver assembly (fig. 1), by means of which system the received light beams are split into two received light bundles (fig. 1), wherein the spacing of the received light bundles (14, 15) is adapted to the size of the gap (fig. 1).
In re. claim 3, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor according to claim 1, characterized in that the receivers of the receiver assembly are formed by photodiodes (photodiode current of the receiving elements) (pg. 2, 4th to last para.).
In re. claim 6, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor according to claim 1, characterized in that there is a diaphragm (42) in the area of the gap between the receivers (fig. 1) (pg. 5, last para.).
In re. claim 7, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor according to claim 6, characterized in that the diaphragm covers edge regions of the receivers (covers edge regions from light of non-associated imaging element) (fig. 1).
In re. claim 8, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the receiving optical system has two partial lenses with different optical axes (fig. 1).
In re. claim 10, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the receiving optical system has an assembly of microlenses (22A, 22B).
In re. claim 11, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the receiving optical system forms a diffractive element (light diffracted in fig. 1).
In re. claim 12, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the spacing of the received light bundles at the location of the receiver assembly corresponds at least approximately to the size of the gap (to focus light on detection areas (28A, 28B) separated by the gap) (fig. 1).
In re. claim 13, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the object detection signal is formed from a ratio of the received signals of the receivers (received signals weighted in adder (40)) (fig. 1) (pg. 7, para. 2 and 3).
In re. claim 14, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 13, characterized in that the object detection signal is formed from the difference of the received signals of the receivers (when sending a negative signal to adder) (pg. 7, 6th. para.).
In re. claim 15, Schug teaches the optical triangulation sensor (1) according to claim 14, characterized in that the difference of the received signals is evaluated with a threshold value (<0, =0, >0) (fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schug as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2011/0057129), hereinafter Yao.
In re. claim 2, Schug fails to disclose the components are integrated in a housing in which there is a printed circuit board on which the receivers of the receiver assembly are arranged.
Yao teaches the components are integrated in a housing (18) in which there is a printed circuit board (11) on which the receiver assembly (12) is arranged (para [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Schug to incorporate the teachings of Yao to have the components integrated in a housing in which there is a printed circuit board on which the receivers of the receiver assembly are arranged, for the purpose of providing an optical assembly that features improved performance, lower cost, increased manufacturability, improved reliability, and a smaller sensor assembly (Yao, para [0010]).
In re. claim 4, Schug as modified by Yao (see Yao) teach the optical triangulation sensor according to claim 2, characterized in that the receivers are assembled on the printed circuit board by means of an SMD process (surface mounted) (para [0002]).
In re. claim 5, Schug as modified by Yao (see Yao) teach the optical triangulation sensor according to claim 2, characterized in that the transmitter (16) is arranged on the printed circuit board (fig. 13).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schug.
In re. claim 9, Schug fails to disclose the receiving optical system has optical surfaces tilted with respect to one another.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Schug to have the receiving optical system with optical surfaces tilted with respect to one another, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.04 VI. (C) Doing so allows the incoming light to be focused in different directions, improving the flexibility in the location of the separate detection areas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647