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 .
Prior arts cited in this office action:
Barkan et al. (US 20230036112 (11334734) A1, hereinafter “Barkan”)
Drzymala et al. (US 20120118963 A1, hereinafter “Drzymala”)
Olmstead et al. (US 20180189763 A1, hereinafter “Olmstead”)
Natori et al. (JP 2017032362 A, hereinafter “Natori”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks: applicant argues Independent claims 1 and 11 recite a specific three-dimensional measurement architecture and corresponding method that rely on overlapping fields of view imaged onto laterally adjacent regions of an imaging sensor, and that derive three-dimensional information from positional differences of common features captured in those overlapping fields of view. As amended, these claims are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art, whether considered individually or in combination, and therefore are patentable under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior arts does not teach or suggest applicant invention as claimed and as argued above. For example, Olmstead teaches at least one processor of an imaging system (e.g., imaging system 100) may apply skew correction 502 to a number of images or scan frames 504 captured by the scanning imager 106 at different times, wherein the images have at least some overlaps with each other to provide common reference points. Each exposure may have a unique normal vector as the object may be in motion (e.g., rotating, moving on a conveyor, moving in a user's hand) during the scan sequence. The targeting imager 134 and scanning imager 106 together define a scanning volume 113, which is the overlapping area that can be imaged by both the target imager and the scanning imager (Olmstead [0044], [0052], [0077]). The common reference point is to allow for the combination of the images or frames such that the whole object can be viewed and 3D representation can be generated. The imaging system 100a has a field of view 136a directed toward the case 1104 from a first orientation, and the imaging system 100b has a field of view 136b directed toward the case from a send orientation different from the first orientation. Together, the imaging systems 100a-b are able to detect the presence and/or movement of the objects 1108 on the shelves 1106a-c of the case 1104 using the methods discussed herein. During operation, information from each of the imaging systems 100a-b may be combined or “fused” to provide more detailed information (e.g., size, location, shape) for the objects 1510. Further, the multiple imaging systems 100a-b may provide better imagery of the objects 1510 by providing different views of the objects, which may be advantageous in instances where portions of an object may not be visible to a single imager (Olmstead [0093], [0097]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a first and a second image to determine three dimensional information pertaining to the object from the first image and the second image (e.g., size, location, shape) in order to determine object with 3D shape and other shape that would facilitate the localization of the bar code, for example.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: applicant argues that Claim 11 requires capturing
a first image of an object on a first region of an imaging sensor from a first field of view, capturing a second image of the object on a laterally adjacent second region of the same imaging sensor from a second field of view, wherein at least a portion of the object is disposed in an overlap region of the two fields of view, and determining three-dimensional information pertaining to the object from the first and second images. As described in the specification, and as shown in Fig. 7, the determination of three-dimensional information is performed by identifying common points or features present in both images and evaluating their positional differences to infer depth and other three-dimensional characteristics.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior arts does not teach of suggest applicant invention as claimed. As already explain above Olmstead teaches . For example, Olmstead teaches at least one processor of an imaging system (e.g., imaging system 100) may apply skew correction 502 to a number of images or scan frames 504 captured by the scanning imager 106 at different times, wherein the images have at least some overlaps with each other to provide common reference points. Each exposure may have a unique normal vector as the object may be in motion (e.g., rotating, moving on a conveyor, moving in a user's hand) during the scan sequence(Olmstead [0044], [0052], [0077], [0088]-[0089]). Together, the images captured provide 3D information regarding the object. Furthermore, the claims make no mention regarding about evaluating their positional differences to infer depth and other three-dimensional characteristics. The claims only mention determining three dimensional information related to the object which can be any information related to the three-dimension related to the object.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: Olmstead, however, is directed to a fundamentally different system architecture and measurement approach. Olmstead describes a self-checkout system that employs a tracking subsystem with one or more targeting imagers to generate three-dimensional data, such as a depth map, which is then used to steer a separate scanning imager with a narrower field of view toward objects of interest. As described, for example, in paragraph [0044] of Olmstead, the targeting imager produces a depth map in which each pixel represents a distance of objects in the targeting imager's field of view with respect to a baseline position, and this information is used to control a scanning imager to capture images of selected
objects. Thus, Olmstead's three-dimensional measurement is performed by a dedicated targeting imager subsystem that generates depth information independently of the scanning imager used to read indicia.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior arts does not teach of suggest applicant invention as claimed. Similar to Olmstead applicant invention is directed to a checkout system. Further, applicant discloses “three-dimensional information may be determined using two common points such as a planar surface of the target object 802, an angular orientation, a length, a depth, a width, a size, or other geometric and three-dimensional information as previously described.”.
And Olmstead discloses in each application, the imaging system 100 may measure various characteristics of the objects 1002a-g, including locations in space, motion, and/or shape and size (e.g., length, width, height). During operation, information from each of the imaging systems 100a-b may be combined or “fused” to provide more detailed information (e.g., size, location, shape) for the objects 1510. Further, the multiple imaging systems 100a-b may provide better imagery of the objects 1510 by providing different views of the objects, which may be advantageous in instances where portions of an object may not be visible to a single imager (Olmstead [0091], [0093], [0097]).
Therefore, applicant arguments that the Olmstead, however, is directed to a fundamentally different system architecture and measurement approach has not merit.
Furthermore, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case generating three-dimensional information using at least two images covering different areas of an object and having an overlap region would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and well-known in the art especially in view of the cited prior arts above.
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 1-10 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.
The term “generally parallel” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan et al. (US 20230036112 (11334734) A1, hereinafter “Barkan”) in view of Drzymala et al. (US 20120118963 A1, hereinafter “Drzymala”) and in view of Olmstead et al. (US 20180189763 A1, hereinafter “Olmstead”).
Regarding claim 1:
Barkan teaches a bioptic indicia reader (Barkan [0002], fig. 1, where Barkan teaches This disclosure relates generally to bioptic barcode readers, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatuses to mitigate specular reflections and direct illumination interference in bioptic barcode readers) comprising:
a housing including lower portion having a platter extending along a horizontal plane, and a tower region extending above the platter away from the platter, the tower region having a second window, the first and second windows each having at least one field of view (FOV) passing therethrough (Barkan [0043]-[0044], fig. 1, where Barkan teaches FIG. 1 is an illustration of an example bioptic barcode reader 10 that can be configured to be supported by a workstation, such as a checkout counter at a point of sale (POS) of a retail store, and has a product scanning region 15. The bioptic barcode reader 10 has a housing 20 that includes a lower housing portion 30 with an upper surface 35 that faces the product scanning region 15, and an upper housing portion 45 that extends above the lower housing portion 30. The upper surface 35 has a proximal edge 55 that is adjacent the upper housing portion 45, and a distal edge 60 that is generally parallel to and opposite the proximal edge 55), the platter having:
a first window (Barkan [0043]-[0044], fig. 1, where Barkan teaches A generally horizontal window 40 is positioned at the upper surface 35 of the lower housing portion 30 and is configured to allow first light to pass between the product scanning region 15 and an interior region 25 (FIG. 2) of the housing 20. A generally upright window 50 is positioned in the upper housing portion 45 and is configured to allow second light to pass between the product scanning region 15 and the interior region 25 of the housing 20. The first and second light intersect to define the product scanning region 15 of the bioptic barcode reader 10 where a product can be scanned for sale at the POS);
a proximal edge toward the tower region (Barkan [0043]-[0044], fig. 1, where Barkan teaches the upper surface 35 has a proximal edge 55 that is adjacent the upper housing portion 45, and a distal edge 60 that is generally parallel to and opposite the proximal edge 55);
a distal edge away from the tower region; and two lateral sides opposite each other between the proximal edge and the distal edge(Barkan [0043]-[0044], fig. 1, where Barkan teaches the upper surface 35 has a proximal edge 55 that is adjacent the upper housing portion 45, and a distal edge 60 that is generally parallel to and opposite the proximal edge 55);
a length extending between the proximal edge and the distal edge with the length being generally parallel to the lateral sides and midway between the lateral sides defining a centerline of the platter (Barkan [0056]-[0057] fig. 4C, where Barkan teaches the second mirror 420 is positioned directly in the second path P5 and is configured to redirect the first sub-field 430 redirected from the splitter mirror 410 through the generally upright window 50 forming the sub-field of view 401. As shown in FIG. 4C, the second mirror 420 is positioned in a first portion 440 of the housing 20 (e.g., first half of the upper housing portion 45). The sub-field of view 401 emanates through the generally upright window 50 from the second mirror 420 in the first portion 440 in a first direction 445 and crosses a midline 450 of the product scanning region 15); and
a width extending between the two lateral sides of the platter, first optics positioned in the housing to image a first FOV of the imaging system, the first FOV extending along a first optical axis through the second window (Barkan [0055]-[0058] figs 1-4, where Barkan teaches the optical assembly 400 is configured to divide, split, etc. the primary field-of-view 115 into sub-fields of view 401, 402 and 403. The optical assembly 400 includes a mirror arrangement 405 with a splitter mirror 410, a first mirror 415, a second mirror 420, and a third mirror 425. The splitter mirror 410 is positioned directly in a first path P4 of a first portion of the primary field-of-view 115 and is configured to split the primary field-of-view 115 along a horizontal axis, split the first portion of the primary field-of-view 115 into a first sub-field 430 and a second sub-field 435, redirect the first sub-field 430 from the first path P4 to a second path P5 towards the second mirror 420, and redirect the second sub-field 435 from the first path P4 to a third path P6 towards the third mirror 425. In this example, the splitter mirror 410 is a concave splitter mirror having first and second planar mirrors 412A, 412B that are arranged such that the second path P5 from the first planar mirror 412A and the third path P6 from the second planar mirror 412B cross; and
second optics positioned in the housing to image a second FOV of the imaging system, the second FOV extending along a second optical axis through the second window (Barkan [0046], In embodiments, different sub-fields of view may emanate through the horizontal and upright windows 40, 50. As will be described below, in some embodiments, the sub-fields of view are created by splitting a primary field of view of an image sensor with an optical assembly. Example optical assemblies for splitting a primary field of view of an image sensor to create sub-fields of view are described below in connection with FIGS. 2, 3A-B, 4A-C and 5A-B. Other example configurations of the optical assemblies are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/678,773, which was filed on Nov. 8, 2019. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/678,773 is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety), with the second FOV spatially overlapping with the first FOV to form an overlap region, and wherein the overlap region is a three- dimensional volumetric region that extends along the centerline of the scan platter, the overlap region being a volumetric region in which an object maybe me imaged (Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 6, where Barkan teaches A generally horizontal window 40 is positioned at the upper surface 35 of the lower housing portion 30 and is configured to allow first light to pass between the product scanning region 15 and an interior region 25 (FIG. 2) of the housing 20. A generally upright window 50 is positioned in the upper housing portion 45 and is configured to allow second light to pass between the product scanning region 15 and the interior region 25 of the housing 20. The first and second light intersect to define the product scanning region 15 of the bioptic barcode reader 10 where a product can be scanned for sale at the POS).
an imaging sensor disposed in the housing, the imaging sensor positioned in a landscape orientation with a longer side of the imaging sensor disposed generally parallel to the proximal and distal edges of the platter , wherein an active region of the imaging sensor is configured to image the first FOV on a first region of the imaging sensor and to image the second FOV on a second region of the imaging sensor, the second region being laterally adjacent to the first region (Barkan [0043]-[0049], figs. 1-3, where Barkan teaches As will be described below, in some embodiments, the sub-fields of view are created by splitting a primary field of view of an image sensor with an optical assembly. Example optical assemblies for splitting a primary field of view of an image sensor to create sub-fields of view are described below in connection with FIGS. 2, 3A-B, 4A-C and 5A-B. Other example configurations of the optical assemblies are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/678,773, which was filed on Nov. 8, 2019. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/678,773 is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety), a processor communicatively coupled to the imaging sensor and configured to:
capture first image data of an object in the first FOV using the first region of the imaging sensor; capture second image data of the object in the second FOV using the second region of the imaging sensor (Barkan [0043]-[0049], figs. 1-3, where Barkan teaches in other embodiments, the sub-fields of view may be respective primary fields of view of two or more image sensors without an optical assembly for splitting the primary fields of view. In still further embodiments, sub-fields of view may be created with a combination of splitting a first primary field of view of a first image sensor, and using a second primary field of view of a second image sensor as another sub-field of view);
Barkan fails to explicitly teach wherein the volumetric region extends along at least 80% of the centerline of the scan platter.
However, as we can see in figures 3B, 4B and 4C of Barkan the volumetric region seems to cover close to 100% of the centerline of the scan platter. And Drzymala teaches the first optical subsystem twice splits the field of view of the imager 30 as a result of said first and second splits into two of the smaller light collection regions 70, each measuring about 5.4 degrees by 7.6 degrees and two of the larger light collection regions 60, each measuring about 14.8 degrees by 7.6 degrees. All four of the light collection regions 60, 70 pass through the horizontal window 20 along different intersecting directions to read four sides of the product. All four of the light collection regions 60, 70 are derived from just the single imager 30, thereby significantly reducing workstation costs. The smaller and the larger light collection regions 70, 60 are appropriately sized to perform their different tasks. All four of the light collection regions 60, 70, together with the additional light collection region or regions described below that pass through the upright window 22, substantially fully occupy the scan zone. As a result, the scan zone does not have any dead areas in which indicia 14 cannot be read (Drzymala [0041], [0044], figs. 6 and 7).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Barkan and Drzymala as a whole, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to want the overlap region to cover as much area or volume as possible in order to gather as much information as possible regarding the object being scanned and increases the chance of properly capture the bar code being scan to identify the item which ever location it might be on the object. In other words, reducing as much dead area as possible (Drzymala [0041]).
Barkan in view of Drzymala fails to explicitly teach identify at least one common feature of the object present in both the first image data and the second image data when the object is at least partially disposed in the overlap region; and
determine three-dimensional information pertaining to the object based on a positional disparity of the at least one common feature between the first image data and the second image data.
However, Olmstead teaches as shown, at least one processor of an imaging system (e.g., imaging system 100) may apply skew correction 502 to a number of images or scan frames 504 captured by the scanning imager 106 at different times, wherein the images have at least some overlap with each other to provide common reference points. The targeting imager may produce wide angle, high resolution images. In at least some implementations, the targeting imager produces a depth map wherein each pixel represents the distance of objects with the target imager field of view with respect to a baseline position, which is a common reference point for the imagers (Olmstead [0044], [0058], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the plurality of images to generate the three-dimensional data as customary in the art. Since each image contains region similar and region different than another image in other to represent different part of an object while providing a common area to established relationship
Regarding claim 2
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches further comprising an imaging sensor disposed in the housing, the imaging sensor positioned in a landscape orientation with a longer side of the imaging sensor disposed parallel to the distal and proximal edges of the platter, wherein an active region of the imaging sensor is configured to (i) image the first FOV on a first region of the imaging sensor, (ii) image the second FOV on a second region of the imaging sensor, the second section being a different section than the first section with the second section being disposed laterally adjacent to the first section (Barkan [0048], [0078], fig. 7, not that the sensor 112 is misnumbered as 110 (see figure 2)..
Regarding claim 3:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches further comprising third optics positioned in the housing to image a third FOV, the third FOV extending along a third optical axis through the first window, with the third FOV at least partially overlapping with the first FOV and the second FOV, and wherein the imaging sensor further is configured to image the third FOV on a third region of the imaging sensor, the third region being independent from the first region and the second region, with the third region being longitudinally offset from the first region and second region(Barkan [0048], [0078], fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the overlap region at the second window covers a height of at least 75% of the second window (Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 6).
Regarding claim 6:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the first FOV and the second FOV together cover at least 80% of the second window (Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 6).
Regarding claim 7:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches further comprising a processor and computer- readable media storage having machine-readable instructions stored thereon that, when the machine- readable instructions are executed, cause the system to:
capture, by the first region of the imaging sensor, first image data of an object in the first FOV;
capture, by the second region of the imaging sensor, a second image data of the object in the second FOV;
evaluate, by the processor, the first image data to identify the object in the first FOV;
evaluate, by the processor, the second image data to identify the object in the second FOV;
determine, by the processor, three-dimensional information pertaining to the object from the first image data and second image data (Barkan [0036], [0072]-[0074], fig. 8, see also rejection to claim 1 above; Drzymala [0001], [0028], ).
Regarding claim 8:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the system to:
identify, by the processor, indicia in the first image data or the second image data; and
decode, by the processor, the indicia to determine information associated with the object (Barkan [0003], [0008], [0039]-[0040]; Drzymala [0001], [0008], [0033]).
Regarding claim 9:
Barkan in view of Drzymala fails to teach wherein to determine the three-dimensional information, the machine-readable instructions further cause the system to:
identify, by the processor, at least one common point between the first image and the second image; and
determine, by the processor, the three-dimensional information of the object from the determined at least one common point.
However, both Barkan and Drzymala teaches overlapping regions, in other words, a plurality of common points (Barkan [0048]-[0050]; Drzymala [0031]-[0032], [0045], figs. 2, 3 and 6). Furthermore, Olmstead teaches a self-checkout with three dimensional scanning wherein In at least some implementations, the targeting imager produces a depth map wherein each pixel represents the distance of objects with the target imager field of view with respect to a baseline position, which is a common reference point for the imagers. As discussed further below, information obtained by the targeting imager may be used to control the scanning imager to capture images of selected objects (Olmstead [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to determine at least one common point where the two different fields intersect in order to have a reference point to better identify the object and its dimension.
Regarding claim 10:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the overlap region has a volume of 80 cubic inches or greater (Barkan [0048]-[0050], figs. 2, 3 and 6; Drzymala [0041], [0044], figs. 6 and 7; Olmstead [0052]).
Regarding claim 11:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches A method of performing a three-dimensional measurement, the method comprising:
capturing, on a first region of an imaging sensor, a first image of an object in a first FOV, the first field of view being along a first optical axis through a vertical window;
capturing, on a second region of the imaging sensor with the second region being laterally adjacent to the first region, a second image of the object in a second FOV, the second FOV being along a second optical axis through the vertical window, wherein at least at portion of the object is disposed in an overlap region of the first FOV and the second FOV; and
determining, by the processor, three-dimensional information pertaining to the object from the first image and second image.
Please see rejection to claim 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the first FOV and second FOV extend across a length and width of a surface of a platter, the length of the platter extending between a proximal edge of the platter toward the vertical window to a distal edge of the platter away from the vertical window, and a width of the platter extending between two lateral sides of the platter opposite each other between the proximal edge and distal edge(Barkan [0048], [0078], figs. 3B, 4, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 13:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the three-dimensional information includes at least one of a distance of the object, a shape of the object, a size of one or more dimensions of the object, an orientation of the object, one or more curvatures of a surface of an object, a number of distinct objects, and one or more dimensions or distances between elements or features of an object (Olmstead [0005], [0056]).
Regarding claim 15:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the overlap region spans at least 80% of the length of the surface of the scan platter(Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 7; Drzymala [0041], [0044], figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 16:
wherein the overlap region has a volume of 80 cubic inches or greater (Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 7; Drzymala [0041], [0044], figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 17:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the first FOV and the second FOV together cover at least 80% of the second window(Barkan [0043]-[0044], figs. 3-4, and 7; Drzymala [0041], [0044], figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 18:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead teaches wherein the imaging sensor is disposed in a landscape orientation with a longer side of the imaging sensor disposed parallel to the distal and proximal edges of the platter, wherein an active region of the imaging sensor is configured to (i) image the first FOV on a first region of the imaging sensor, (ii) image the second FOV on a second region of the imaging sensor, the second region being a different region than the first region with the second region being disposed laterally adjacent to the first region (Barkan [0048], [0078], fig. 7, not that the sensor 112 is misnumbered as 110 (see figure 2).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkan et al. (US 20230036112 (11334734) A1, hereinafter “Barkan”) in view of Drzymala et al. (US 20120118963 A1, hereinafter “Drzymala”), in view of Olmstead et al. (US 20180189763 A1, hereinafter “Olmstead”) and in view of Natori et al. (JP 2017032362 A, hereinafter “Natori”).
Regarding claim 4:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead fails to explicitly teach wherein the first optics rotate the first field of view around the first optical axis, and the second optics rotate the second field of view around the second optical axis.
However, Natori teaches a measurement object measuring program, measurement object measuring method and enlargement observation device wherein the center of the rotation axis of the θ stage 30 in the θ direction coincides with the optical axis of the light receiving unit 120. Therefore, when the θ stage 30 is rotated in the θ direction, the measuring object S can be rotated within the field of view around the rotation axis without removing the measuring object S from the field of view. The XY stage 10 and the θ stage 30 are supported by the Z stage 20.
Therefore, taking the teachings of Barkan, Drzymala and Natori as a whole, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide an axis to each of the optics to allow them to rotate, in order to facilitate the measuring of the object in the view.
Regarding claim 14:
Barkan in view of Drzymala and in view of Olmstead fails to teach wherein the first optics rotate the first field of view around the first optical axis, and the second optics rotate the second field of view around the second optical axis.
However, Natori teaches a measurement object measuring program, measurement object measuring method and enlargement observation device wherein the center of the rotation axis of the θ stage 30 in the θ direction coincides with the optical axis of the light receiving unit 120. Therefore, when the θ stage 30 is rotated in the θ direction, the measuring object S can be rotated within the field of view around the rotation axis without removing the measuring object S from the field of view. The XY stage 10 and the θ stage 30 are supported by the Z stage 20.
Therefore, taking the teachings of Barkan, Drzymala, Olmstead and Natori as a whole, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to provide an axis to each of the optics to allow them to rotate, in order to facilitate the measuring of the object in the view.
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 WEDNEL CADEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7843. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/WEDNEL CADEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights