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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicants’ remarks/arguments filed on 08/17/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-10, filed on 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Jensen’s Fig. 2 embodiment does not disclose that the front boundary surface and back boundary surface are curved or that measuring light entering the retro-reflecting element is focused on the back boundary surface. However, the rejection does not rely upon the Fig. 2 embodiment alone for these features. As set forth in the previous Office Action, Jensen Fig. 2 and [0132], [0136], [0139], and [0142] are relied upon for the retro-reflecting element, the entry and rear light-passage surfaces, and the transmission of non-reflected measuring radiation toward the downstream sensor arrangement. Jensen’s spherical retroreflector embodiment is relied upon for the curved boundary surfaces and focusing feature. In particular, Jensen [0217] teaches a transparent spherical retroreflector in which incoming light 110 is focused on back surface 111 and a reflected outgoing beam 112 is produced by Fresnel reflection at the glass-air interface. Thus, Applicant’s observation that Fig. 2 itself does not disclose the focusing feature does not address the rejection as actually set forth.
Applicant further argues that employing Jensen’s spherical retroreflector would materially alter the optical behavior of the Fig. 2 arrangement because the spherical retroreflector operates through refraction and focusing. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of the Fig. 9 spherical retroreflector into the exact physical arrangement illustrated in Fig. 2 while maintaining every component at precisely the same location. Rather, Jensen [0217] establishes the known optical operation of the spherical retroreflector, and Jensen [0023], as relied upon in the Office Action, explains that spherical retroreflectors provide 360-degree angular acceptance. The modification therefore employs Jensen’s known spherical retroreflector in Jensen’s known sensing arrangement for the advantages identified in the rejection. The different optical behavior identified by Applicant does not establish that such modification would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art or would have rendered Jensen’s sensor arrangement inoperative.
Applicant also argues that the Office Action does not explain the resulting optical path, the location of the focus, subsequent propagation of the measuring radiation, or the spatial relationship between the modified retroreflector and the sensor unit. However, these particular implementation details are not limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require a particular distance between the retro-reflecting element and the sensor unit, a particular post-focus beam geometry, or a particular location of the downstream optical components. Rather, claim 1 requires that the transmitted measuring light be detectable by the sensor unit. As previously set forth, Jensen [0142] teaches that a non-reflected portion of the radiation exits the rear of the reflector through light-passage surface 23 and is incident on mirror 24, while Jensen [0137] and [0145] teach sensor 25 generating a measurement signal based on the acquired measuring radiation and beam 28 being deflected onto sensor 25 for detection. Accordingly, Jensen’s previously relied upon disclosure provides the downstream detection function required by the claim.
Applicant further argues that the proposed modification would not have been predictable and that the rejection relies upon Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap. This argument is not persuasive. The modification is derived from Jensen’s own teachings. Jensen [0132], [0136]- [0145] provide the reflector and downstream sensor arrangement relied upon in the rejection, while Jensen [0217] provides the spherical retroreflector having the curved surface and focusing characteristics. Moreover, the reason for employing the spherical configuration was previously provided in the Office Action based upon Jensen’s teaching that spherical retroreflectors provide angular acceptance and avoid systematic shifts associated with rotating multi-prism retroreflectors. Thus, the proposed modification and the reason for making the modification are derived from Jensen rather than Applicant’s disclosure.
Finally, Applicant generally asserts that the cited references fail to teach or suggest each and every claim element and that the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention have not been adequately explained. This general assertion is not persuasive. The previous Office Action separately identifies the teachings relied upon for the limitations of the pending claims and sets forth the respective combinations and reasons for modification. Applicant has not identified a separate deficiency in the dependent claim rejections apart from the arguments concerning Jensen’s Fig. 2/Fig. 9 modification addressed above. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained for the reasons previously set forth and as further explained herein.
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 1-4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 20200408520 A1, “Jensen”).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen teaches a sensor device comprising a
a retro-reflecting element (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0132], [136]; reflector arrangement 20) having a front boundary surface (Fig. 2a, [0136]; light entry surface 22) configured for entry of measuring light into the retro-reflecting element (Fig. 2a, [0139]) and a back boundary surface (Fig. 2a, [0136]; light passage surface 23) configured for reflecting a first part of the measuring light as reflected measuring light (Fig.2a. [0142] teaches that the measurement radiation entering the retroreflector is predominantly reflected back in parallel by the geometry of the retroreflector.) and configured for transmitting a second part of the measuring light as transmitted measuring light ([0142] teaches that a non-reflected part of radiation exits at the rear end of the reflector through passage surface 23 and is incident on mirror 24),
wherein the front boundary surface and the back boundary surface are arranged on opposite sides of the retro-reflecting element (Fig. 2a shows light entry surface 22 and light passage surface 23 on opposite sides of retroreflector 21;), and
a sensor unit (Fig. 2a, sensor 25) configured and arranged so that the transmitted measuring light is detectable by the sensor unit ([0137] teaches sensor 25 for generating a measurement signal based on acquisition of measurement radiation, and [0145] teaches beam 28 is deflected onto sensor 25 for detection.),
an incidence angle of the measuring light relative to the sensor device is equal to an exit angle of the reflected measuring light relative to the sensor device ([0133] teaches measurement radiation is reflected back in parallel by the retroreflector. [0142], the measurement radiation thus enters the reflector 21 and is predominantly reflected back in parallel because of the geometry of the retroreflector 21).
Jensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the front boundary surface and the back boundary surface are of curved shape,
the retro-reflecting element is configured so that the measuring light entering into the retro-reflecting element at the front boundary surface is focused on the back boundary surface.
However, Jensen discloses a spherical retroreflector comprising a transparent sphere. In such a spherical retroreflector, the front portion of the sphere through which the incoming measuring light enters and the opposite rear/back portion of the sphere are curved/spherical boundary surfaces. Jensen further teaches that incoming measurement light is focused on the back surface of the sphere, reflected back by Fresnel reflection from the glass-air interface, and recollimated to create cat-eye-type retroreflection. See Jensen, Fig. 9a, sphere 102, incoming light 110, back surface 111, and outgoing light beam 112; [0023], [0217].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Jensen’s spherical/cat-eye retroreflecting element in Jensen’s reflector arrangement because Jensen teaches that spherical retroreflectors naturally provide a 360° angular acceptance range in both horizontal and vertical directions and avoid the systematic shifts caused by multi-prism 360° reflectors when the reflector rotates. Jensen further teaches that the spherical retroreflector focuses incoming measurement light on the back surface and recollimates the reflected light to create cat-eye-type retroreflection, thereby providing a predictable optical arrangement for high-accuracy surveying measurements.
Regarding claim 2, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the front boundary surface and the back boundary surface are of spherical shape (Jensen teaches a spherical retroreflector comprising a transparent sphere and illustrates an n≈2 sphere in Fig. 9a ([0216]- [0217]). Jensen ([0023]) explains that spherical retroreflectors provide 360° angular acceptance and use a transparent sphere.).
Regarding claim 3, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the retro-reflecting element comprises a sphere with a refraction index n of 1.9<n<2.1, in particular wherein n=2 (Jensen Fig. 9a labels the sphere as “n=2 sphere 102,” and [0217] states that the sphere is homogeneous with a refractive index substantially 2.).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the retro-reflecting element is made of glass (Jensen [0218] discusses the n=2 glass sphere and optical material/glass type used for the spherical retroreflector.), and/or
the retro-reflecting element comprises a coating which provides separation of the measuring light into the reflected measuring light and the transmitted measuring light, in particular a partially reflective coating.
Regarding claim 8, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises an imaging element, the imaging element is arranged between the retro-reflecting element and the sensor unit and provides directing of the transmitted measuring light towards the sensor unit (Jensen teaches beam deflection means 24/mirror and optical beam guiding structures downstream of the retroreflector. Fig. 2a, [0136-0137], [0145]. Fig. 2a shows that mirror 24 is between passage surface 23 and sensor 25.).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Ford et al. (US 20150207990 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the retro-reflecting element comprises at least two optical elements (Jensen Fig. 9b and [0219] teach an alternative sphere 102′ with a stepped refractive index, including inner sphere 102i and outer shell 102o.), in particular wherein each of the at least two optical elements has a refractive index n of n<2.1 (Jensen [0219] teaches inner sphere n1=1.8 and outer shell n2=1.5, both below 2.1.).
Jensen fails to explicitly teach wherein the front boundary surface is provided by a first of the at least two optical elements and the back boundary surface is provided by a second of the at least two optical elements.
However, Ford discloses a monocentric optical imaging module having one or more optical elements with concentric surfaces, including an inner glass ball lens and an outer glass lens element. Ford further teaches a ball lens element, a first lens element having a first spherical surface formed outside the ball lens element, and a second lens element having a second spherical surface formed outside the ball lens element, all concentric with the ball lens element. Ford also teaches that the first lens element receives input light and the second lens element outputs light toward the curved image surface. See Ford [0015-0017], [0140-0142], Figs. 20A-20B, claims 40-42 and 46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jensen’s spherical cat-eye retroreflector, including Jensen’s stepped-index inner-sphere/outer-shell embodiment, to use Ford’s known multi-element monocentric optical construction in which different concentric optical elements provide respective spherical boundary surfaces. The motivation would have been to preserve Jensen’s compact spherical/cat-eye geometry while allowing the optical designer to select separate materials, refractive indices, and surface radii for the respective optical elements, as taught by Ford, in order to improve focusing performance and reduce spherical, monochromatic, and chromatic aberrations (Ford, [0149]).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen, in view of Ford, teaches the sensor device according to claim 5, wherein each of the at least two optical elements has a centre point and the at least two optical elements are arranged so that the centre points of the at least two optical elements coincide (Jensen discloses an alternative spherical retroreflector 102′ having a stepped refractive index, wherein the sphere 102′ consists of an inner sphere 102i having a first refractive index and an outer shell 102o having a second refractive index. Because the outer shell surrounds the inner sphere, the inner sphere and outer shell are arranged concentrically, such that each optical element has a center point and the center points coincide. See Jensen, Fig. 9b, [0219].).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Nikzad et al. (US 20050109918 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen fails to explicitly teach the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a curved detecting element, in particular wherein the curved detecting element is mounted onto the back boundary surface.
Jensen teaches a sensor device having a retroreflecting element and a sensor unit configured to detect measuring radiation guided/focused from the retroreflector to a downstream sensor. See Jensen, [0163-0169], Fig. 5a. Jensen fails to explicitly teach that the sensor unit comprises a curved detecting element mounted onto the back boundary surface of the retro-reflecting element.
Nikzad teaches solid-state curved focal plane detector arrays matched to a given optical system. Nikzad explains that flat detector arrays require added optical elements to flatten the focal surface, whereas a curved detector may conform to the naturally curved focal surface and thereby reduce optical elements, size, weight, complexity, and cost. See Nikzad, [0004], [0006-0009], Fig. 1. Nikzad further teaches that the curved detector may be a thin deformable membrane having a finite radius of curvature and may be concave, convex, cylindrically curved, or spherically curved, and that the membrane may be attached to a rigid curved substrate or otherwise conformed to curvature. See Nikzad, [0057-0059], [0068-0069], Figs. 1, 9a-9b, and 11. Nikzad also claims a detector having a curved surface with a finite radius of curvature and detector circuitry on the opposite side. See Nikzad, claims 63 and 69.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jensen’s sensor device to use Nikzad’s curved focal plane detecting element at Jensen’s curved back boundary/focal surface because Jensen already directs/focuses transmitted measuring radiation toward a sensor, and Nikzad teaches that matching a curved detector to a naturally curved focal surface reduces the need for additional focal-surface-flattening optics, reduces size/weight/complexity/cost, increases reliability, and improves optical design tolerance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Albert W. Kongable (US 6438296 B1, “Kongable”).
Regarding claim 9, Jensen teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a plurality of sensor elements (Jensen Fig. 5a teaches two sensors 45a/45b and two beam guiding units/focusing groups for detecting radiation over different fields of view. [0163-0166].), wherein each sensor element comprises a detecting element and an imaging optic assigned to the detecting element (Jensen [0166] teaches beam passages/beam deflection means and focusing groups 55a/55b associated with sensors 45a/45b.), wherein
the sensor elements are arranged relative to the back boundary surface so that a respective sensor element is assigned to a respective region of the back boundary surface (Jensen [0163-0166] teaches different prism groups/fields of view associated with corresponding sensors and beam guiding units.), and
a respective sensor element provides imaging of measuring light transmitted at its assigned region of the back boundary surface onto its detecting element (Jensen teaches radiation incident within a field of view is acquired by one of sensors 45a/45b depending on which region/group it enters. [0163].),
Jensen fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the imaging optics comprises an imaging fibre optic taper and the assigned detecting element is directly mounted onto the imaging fibre optic taper.
However, Kongable teaches a position sensing module using fiber optic tapers coupled to independent detectors. In particular, Kongable teaches a plurality of fiber optic tapers, each having a first surface, a tapered section, and a second surface, and a plurality of position sensing detectors, each detector mounted to the second surface of a respective fiber optic taper. Kongable further teaches that the fiber optic tapers are coupled to the small ends of respective tracking detectors using a suitable technique, such as clear adhesive. See Kongable, Abstract; Figs. 1-5; col. 2: lines 14-21; col. 3: line 66 and 11; claims 1, 4.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jensen’s sensor device to use Kongable’s fiber optic taper coupled detector structure for at least one of Jensen’s sensor/imaging elements because Jensen already teaches focusing/directing transmitted orientation measurement radiation toward a sensor, and Kongable teaches that fiber optic tapers transfer an incoming optical signal to detectors while enabling angular-position sensing, increased effective sensing area, high sensitivity, low noise, and reduced optical/electrical crosstalk between detector channels (Kongable, Col 1: lines 61-67; Col 5: lines 45-55).
Claims 10-11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Ellsworth (US 20160339337 A1, “Ellsworth”).
Regarding claim 10, Jensen fails to explicitly teach but Ellsworth teaches the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises at least one referencing assembly with a marker and an illumination unit (Ellsworth discloses integrating the fiducial marking function into a retroreflective surface, where the fiducial markers may be passive and identified by illumination from a head-mounted projected display or other source. Ellsworth further teaches a retroreflective screen 395 having integrated fiducials for providing fiducial information to tracking module 383. See Ellsworth, [0007-0008], [0020-0023], Figs. 3-4.),
wherein the marker is fixedly connected to the retro-reflecting element (Ellsworth [0007] states that “a fiducial marker pattern is embedded in a retroreflective surface or in a boundary region thereof.” Ellsworth [0022] teaches that retroreflective screen 395 has integrated fiducials arranged to provide fiducial information. Ellsworth [0038] further teaches that a fiducial marker pattern 601 is layered on the surface of a retroreflective screen 395-B using inks or films.), in particular directly mounted onto the retro-reflecting element (Ellsworth [0038] teaches marker pattern 601 layered on the surface of retroreflective screen 395-B through special inks or films. Ellsworth [0037] also teaches placing an additional layer or film over the retroreflective surface or modifying the retroreflective surface to create spatial variation in an optical characteristic.), and the illumination unit comprises a light source and is configured for illuminating the marker (Ellsworth [0023] teaches that integrated fiducials may be fluorescent dots or fluorescent regions pumped by ambient light or by a pump source, and that HMPD 381 includes an infrared pumping source 390 to pump fluorescent fiducial markers disposed in the retroreflective screen. Ellsworth [0031] teaches generating pump illumination, including infrared light, to pump fluorescent fiducials. Ellsworth [0034] teaches that IR fluorescent markers may be pumped by shorter or longer wavelength illumination. See also, claims 2-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jensen’s retroreflector/sensor arrangement to include Ellsworth’s integrated fiducial marker and illumination arrangement because Jensen already uses a retroreflector with sensor-based detection for determining orientation, and Ellsworth teaches that fiducial markers integrated into or onto a retroreflective surface may be illuminated and detected to provide tracking/reference information while avoiding a separate powered fiducial unit, reducing component complexity, and keeping the fiducial reference fixed with the retroreflective structure.
Regarding claim 11, Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, teaches the sensor device according to claim 10, wherein the marker is arranged at the back boundary surface (Jensen teaches a retroreflector/sensor arrangement in which radiation passes through the retroreflector and is detected by a downstream sensor/beam detection unit. Jensen, [0035-0045], Figs. 2a, 5a.
Ellsworth teaches fiducial markers integrated with a retroreflective surface. Ellsworth [0007] teaches a fiducial marker pattern embedded in a retroreflective surface or boundary region. Ellsworth [0038] teaches a fiducial marker pattern 601 layered on the surface of retroreflective screen 395-B using special inks or films. Ellsworth [0044] further teaches a retroreflective surface having a first converging lens on one surface and a concave mirror on the facing back second surface and transferring a diffraction pattern during molding/embossing. Ellsworth, [0007], [0038], [0044], Figs. 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jensen’s retroreflector/sensor arrangement to place Ellsworth’s integrated fiducial marker on a boundary surface, including the rear/back surface, because Ellsworth teaches that integrating fiducial patterns into or onto a retroreflective surface provides fixed reference/tracking information without a separate fiducial unit.
Regarding claim 13, Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, teaches the sensor device according to claim 10, wherein the at least one referencing assembly is arranged and configured so that the marker is imageable onto the sensor unit by means of the illumination of the marker and an image of the marker is detectable by the sensor unit (Jensen teaches a sensor that may be a CMOS or CCD and may be configured for image acquisition, and further teaches determining a point or region of incidence of radiation by the sensor. Jensen, [0045].
Ellsworth teaches detecting illuminated/integrated fiducial markers using a tracking module. Ellsworth [0027] teaches that tracking module 383 may include at least one camera to take images and detect the integrated fiducial markers. Ellsworth [0035] teaches photographing or video sampling the state of fluorescent fiducial marks after illumination/pumping. Ellsworth [0033] teaches fiducial dots illuminated by ambient light or projected illumination from the HMPD. Ellsworth, [0027], [0033], [0035], Figs. 3, 5-6.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Jensen sensor device to include Ellsworth’s illuminated, imageable integrated fiducial marker arrangement. Doing so, would have predictably provided Jensen’s sensor device with a fixed, optically detectable reference marker that can be illuminated and imaged by the sensor unit for referencing/tracking while avoiding a separate fiducial unit.
Regarding claim 15, Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, teaches a sensor calibration system comprising:
a sensor device according to claim 13 (See rejection of claim 13) and
a controlling and processing unit (Jensen [0004] teaches modern surveying devices having microprocessors for digital further processing and storage of acquired measurement data, including computer, control, and storage units and a microprocessor display-control unit. Jensen also teaches that the sensor can be a position sensor or image sensor, and that an offset of a beam point of incidence relative to a sensor center can be determined by image processing or focal-point determination. See Jensen, [0181-0183].),
wherein the controlling and processing unit comprises (a calibrating functionality) which is configured for illuminating the marker by means of the illumination unit (Ellsworth [0023] teaches integrated fiducials comprising fluorescent dots/regions that are pumped by ambient light or by a pump source, and further teaches HMPD 381 having an infrared pumping source 390 to pump fluorescent fiducial markers disposed in the retroreflective screen. Ellsworth [0031] teaches generating pump illumination signals; [0034] teaches IR fluorescent markers pumped by illumination; and [0035] teaches sampling the fiducial marks after illumination. See Ellsworth, [0023], [0031], [0034-0035], Figs. 3-4, 8.),
capturing an image of the marker by means of the sensor unit (Jensen teaches that the sensor can be an image sensor, such as a CCD or CMOS, and can determine a point or region of incidence of radiation by focal-point determination/image processing. See Jensen, [0045], [0182-0183]. Ellsworth teaches that tracking module 383 may include at least one camera to take images and detect the integrated fiducial markers, and that fluorescent fiducial markers may be detected in time windows after pumping. See Ellsworth, [0027], Fig. 3.),
deriving an image position of the marker imaged onto the sensor unit (Jensen teaches determining an offset of a beam point of incidence relative to a sensor center by image processing/focal-point determination. See Jensen, [0182]. Ellsworth teaches detecting integrated fiducial markers using a camera/tracking module and accounting for the arrangement of the fiducial markers in making tracking decisions, which requires determining the detected marker image position relative to the known fiducial arrangement. See Ellsworth, [0025], [0027], [0030], Fig. 4.),
comparing the image position with a reference image position for the marker and determine a deviation between the image position of the marker and the reference image position (Ellsworth teaches that the fiducial markers have a known/selected spatial arrangement. In particular, Ellsworth teaches selecting/optimizing the number and arrangement of integrated fiducial markers to facilitate tracking, and that the tracking module accounts for the arrangement of the passive fiducial markers when making tracking decisions. Ellsworth also teaches that the tracking module includes a camera to take images and detect the integrated fiducial markers. See Ellsworth [0025], [0027], [0030], Fig. 4.).
Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, fails to explicitly teach the specific calibration sequence of illuminating that marker, capturing the marker image, comparing the marker image position with a reference image position, determining deviation, and deriving calibration data based on that deviation.
However, Ueno teaches this reference-position/deviation calibration technique. Ueno teaches a surveying machine having a deviation detector and an optical axis adjuster. The deviation detector detects a deviation between a sighting optical axis and a light-transmitting optical axis, and the optical axis adjuster automatically corrects the deviation. See Ueno [0009-0014], Fig. 1.
Ueno further teaches that a positioning detector detects an incidence position of a measurement beam on a light-receiving area, and a base-position corresponding to the sighted position/optical axis is defined in advance. Ueno then detects a difference between the incidence position and the base-position. See Ueno [0045-0047], Figs. 1 and 3.
Ueno also teaches using the determined deviation for correction/calibration: the deviation signal is fed to system control circuit 40, which outputs a control signal to adjust the reflecting mirror, and the position is changed so that the optical axis deviation (the “state” corresponds to optical alignment/offset/deviation state of the retroreflecting sensor arrangement) is corrected. See Ueno [0048], [0055], [0063], Figs. 1, 4-6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Jensen, to include Ueno’s reference-position/deviation comparison technique. Doing so will provide deviation information that can be used to correct/calibrate optical alignment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Ellsworth and Maleki et al. (US 20190094366 A1, “Maleki”).
Regarding claim 12, Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, fails to explicitly the sensor device according to claim 10, wherein the illumination unit comprises an optical element which is assigned to the light source and the illumination unit is arranged at the front boundary surface for illumination of the marker by illumination of the marker through the retro-reflecting element, and/or
the illumination unit comprises a coupling optics, wherein the coupling optics is connected to the retro-reflecting element and provides coupling of illumination light into the retro-reflecting element, in particular wherein the coupling optics is embodied as a waveguide and provides coupling of the illumination light by the principle of whispering gallery coupling.
However, Maleki teaches a compact LIDAR system in which a laser source is optically coupled to a whispering-gallery-mode optical resonator, and light from the laser is coupled into the WGM resonator. See Maleki Abstract, [0011-0012].
Maleki further teaches that light can be coupled from a laser source into a whispering-gallery mode by evanescent wave coupling, for example using a prism, an optical fiber with a faceted face, or a similar device. See Maleki [0040].
Maleki also teaches a concrete coupling arrangement in Fig. 1: source laser 1 provides laser beam 1a, which is coupled into WGM resonator 4 using optical coupler 4a, such as a prism, and the beam may be directed into the optical coupler using lens 3. Maleki teaches that a subset of the laser frequencies propagates as a self-reinforcing whispering-gallery-mode wave 5a through the resonator. See Maleki [0042], Fig. 1.
Maleki states that optical coupling between a source laser and an optical resonator may be provided by a waveguide, and that suitable waveguides include optical fibers and optically conductive materials on silicon wafers. Maleki’s Fig. 2 shows source laser 200 coupled to WGM resonator 240 using waveguides 210 and 230, with light from the laser coupled into the WGM resonator where the whispering-gallery-mode light is entrapped. See Maleki [0043], Fig. 2.
Maleki further teaches that the WGM resonator may be a spherical optical resonator, and Fig. 6A depicts a spherical WGM resonator optically coupled to waveguides. See Maleki [0046-0047], Figs. 4A and 6A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Jensen’s sensor device to include Maleki’s optical-coupler/waveguide coupling arrangement. Doing so would have predictably provided a compact, fixed optical path for coupling illumination light into the retro-reflecting optical element for marker illumination, without requiring a separate free-space illumination path.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Ellsworth and Ueno (US 20020186361 A1, “Ueno”).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen, in view of Ellsworth, teaches a sensor calibration system comprising:
a sensor device according to claim 10 (See rejection of claim 10) and
a controlling and processing unit (Jensen [0004] teaches modern surveying devices having microprocessors for digital further processing and storage of acquired measurement data, including computer, control, and storage units and a microprocessor display-control unit. Jensen also teaches that the sensor can be a position sensor or image sensor, and that an offset of a beam point of incidence relative to a sensor center can be determined by image processing or focal-point determination. See Jensen, [0181-0183].),
wherein the controlling and processing unit comprises (a calibrating functionality) which is configured for illuminating the marker by means of the illumination unit (Ellsworth [0023] teaches integrated fiducials comprising fluorescent dots/regions that are pumped by ambient light or by a pump source, and further teaches HMPD 381 having an infrared pumping source 390 to pump fluorescent fiducial markers disposed in the retroreflective screen. Ellsworth [0031] teaches generating pump illumination signals; [0034] teaches IR fluorescent markers pumped by illumination; and [0035] teaches sampling the fiducial marks after illumination. See Ellsworth, [0023], [0031], [0034-0035], Figs. 3-4, 8.),
capturing an image of the marker by means of the sensor unit (Jensen teaches that the sensor can be an image sensor, such as a CCD or CMOS, and can determine a point or region of incidence of radiation by focal-point determination/image processing. See Jensen, [0045], [0182-0183]. Ellsworth teaches that tracking module 383 may include at least one camera to take images and detect the integrated fiducial markers, and that fluorescent fiducial markers may be detected in time windows after pumping. See Ellsworth, [0027], Fig. 3.),
deriving an image position of the marker imaged onto the sensor unit (Jensen teaches determining an offset of a beam point of incidence relative to a sensor center by image processing/focal-point determination. See Jensen, [0182]. Ellsworth teaches detecting integrated fiducial markers using a camera/tracking module and accounting for the arrangement of the fiducial markers in making tracking decisions, which requires determining the detected marker image position relative to the known fiducial arrangement. See Ellsworth, [0025], [0027], [0030], Fig. 4.),
comparing the image position with a reference image position for the marker and determine a deviation between the image position of the marker and the reference image position (Ellsworth teaches that the fiducial markers have a known/selected spatial arrangement. In particular, Ellsworth teaches selecting/optimizing the number and arrangement of integrated fiducial markers to facilitate tracking, and that the tracking module accounts for the arrangement of the passive fiducial markers when making tracking decisions. Ellsworth also teaches that the tracking module includes a camera to take images and detect the integrated fiducial markers. See Ellsworth [0025], [0027], [0030], Fig. 4.).
Jensen in view of Ellsworth fails to explicitly teach the specific calibration sequence of illuminating that marker, capturing the marker image, comparing the marker image position with a reference image position, determining deviation, and deriving calibration data based on that deviation.
However, Ueno teaches this reference-position/deviation calibration technique. Ueno teaches a surveying machine having a deviation detector and an optical axis adjuster. The deviation detector detects a deviation between a sighting optical axis and a light-transmitting optical axis, and the optical axis adjuster automatically corrects the deviation. See Ueno [0009-0014], Fig. 1.
Ueno further teaches that a positioning detector detects an incidence position of a measurement beam on a light-receiving area, and a base-position corresponding to the sighted position/optical axis is defined in advance. Ueno then detects a difference between the incidence position and the base-position. See Ueno [0045-0047], Figs. 1 and 3.
Ueno also teaches using the determined deviation for correction/calibration: the deviation signal is fed to system control circuit 40, which outputs a control signal to adjust the reflecting mirror, and the position is changed so that the optical axis deviation (the “state” corresponds to optical alignment/offset/deviation state of the retroreflecting sensor arrangement) is corrected. See Ueno [0048], [0055], [0063], Figs. 1, 4-6.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Jensen, to include Ueno’s reference-position/deviation comparison technique. Doing so will provide deviation information that can be used to correct/calibrate optical alignment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Michael Vogel (US 20130329218 A1, “Vogel”).
Regarding claim 16, Jensen teaches a measuring device comprising
a sensor device according to claim 1(See the rejection of claim 1) and
a controlling and processing unit (Jensen teaches an analysis unit configured to determine the alignment of the detection field of view from the sensor signal and derive yaw/pitch angle information. Jensen also teaches processing encoder values, processing intensity measurements, and using image processing or focal-point determination when the sensor is an image/position sensor. See Jensen, claim 27; [0178-0183].),
wherein the controlling and processing unit comprises an orientation measuring functionality (Jensen teaches that, based on the rotational alignment of the beam guide at which radiation is detected, a direction angle can be determined, and an absolute orientation of the measuring rod can be determined. See Jensen, [0134]. Jensen further teaches determining spatial orientation/yaw/pitch based on detected measurement radiation and processing the acquired measurement data. See Jensen, [0055-0056], [0063-0065].),
computing the incidence angle of the measuring light at the front boundary surface, the incidence angle depends on an orientation of the measuring device relative to a propagation direction of the measuring light (Jensen states that orientation determination is performed with the aid of and in relation to the propagation axis of the measurement radiation incident on the arrangement, and that the azimuth of the reflector arrangement with respect to the propagation axis can be derived from the angle position. Jensen also explains that if the reflector arrangement is rotated, the angle of incidence changes. Jensen, [0063-0066], [0134]).
Jensens fails to explicitly teach that the orientation measuring functionality is configured for:
capturing an image by means of the sensor unit,
processing the image,
deriving an image position of the transmitted measuring light imaged onto the sensor unit,
based on the derived image position.
Vogel teaches a geodetic target comprising a reflector, imaging optics focusing measurement beams incident on the reflector, and a matrix sensor whose receiving surface is situated in an image plane of the imaging optics. Vogel also teaches that the interface outputs signals from the matrix sensor to determine spatial orientation of the reflector relative to the target point. See Vogel, Abstract, Fig. 1, and claim 1.
Vogel further teaches that the imaging optics are coordinated with the reflector and focus the incident measurement beams into an image point, and that the matrix sensor determines the position of the image point within the receiving surface. This image point position is used to determine orientation of the reflector/geodetic target. See Vogel, [0030], [0032-0035], Figs. 1 and 2A-2G.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jensen to use Vogel’s image-point/matrix-sensor orientation determination because Jensen already teaches detecting transmitted measurement radiation to determine orientation and using image processing to determine a beam-incidence offset, while Vogel teaches that the position of a focused measurement-beam image on a matrix sensor can be used to determine reflector orientation. The combination would have predictably improved Jensen’s orientation measurement by computing incidence angle from the derived image position of the transmitted measuring light.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Ellsworth and Vogel.
Regarding claim 17, Jensen in view of Ellsworth teaches a measuring device comprising
a sensor device according to claim 13 (See the rejection of claim 13) and
a controlling and processing unit (Jensen teaches an analysis unit configured to determine the alignment of the detection field of view from the sensor signal and derive yaw/pitch angle information. Jensen also teaches processing encoder values, processing intensity measurements, and using image processing or focal-point determination when the sensor is an image/position sensor. See Jensen, claim 27; [0178-0183].),
wherein the controlling and processing unit comprises an orientation measuring functionality (Jensen teaches that, based on the rotational alignment of the beam guide at which radiation is detected, a direction angle can be determined, and an absolute orientation of the measuring rod can be determined. See Jensen, [0134]. Jensen further teaches determining spatial orientation/yaw/pitch based on detected measurement radiation and processing the acquired measurement data. See Jensen, [0055-0056], [0063-0065].),
computing the incidence angle of the measuring light at the front boundary surface, the incidence angle depends on an orientation of the measuring device relative to a propagation direction of the measuring light (Jensen states that orientation determination is performed with the aid of and in relation to the propagation axis of the measurement radiation incident on the arrangement, and that the azimuth of the reflector arrangement with respect to the propagation axis can be derived from the angle position. Jensen also explains that if the reflector arrangement is rotated, the angle of incidence changes. Jensen, [0063-0066], [0134]).
Jensens fails to explicitly teach that the orientation measuring functionality is configured for:
capturing an image by means of the sensor unit,
processing the image,
deriving an image position of the transmitted measuring light imaged onto the sensor unit,
based on the derived image position.
Vogel teaches a geodetic target comprising a reflector, imaging optics focusing measurement beams incident on the reflector, and a matrix sensor whose receiving surface is situated in an image plane of the imaging optics. Vogel also teaches that the interface outputs signals from the matrix sensor to determine spatial orientation of the reflector relative to the target point. See Vogel, Abstract, Fig. 1, and claim 1.
Vogel further teaches that the imaging optics are coordinated with the reflector and focus the incident measurement beams into an image point, and that the matrix sensor determines the position of the image point within the receiving surface. This image point position is used to determine orientation of the reflector/geodetic target. See Vogel, [0030], [0032-0035], Figs. 1 and 2A-2G.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jensen to use Vogel’s image-point/matrix-sensor orientation determination because Jensen already teaches detecting transmitted measurement radiation to determine orientation and using image processing to determine a beam-incidence offset, while Vogel teaches that the position of a focused measurement-beam image on a matrix sensor can be used to determine reflector orientation. The combination would have predictably improved Jensen’s orientation measurement by computing incidence angle from the derived image position of the transmitted measuring light.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 -5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
