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 applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 09/01/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claim 8 has been amended.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 09/01/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-15, filed on 09/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
I. Applicable Obviousness Standard
Applicant argues that, under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., an obviousness rejection must do more than establish that the references could be combined and must provide an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the claimed manner.
Applicant’s statement of the general obviousness standard has been considered. The Examiner agrees that the mere fact that prior art references can be combined is not, by itself, sufficient to establish obviousness. However, the obviousness inquiry also does not require the references to disclose identical structures or to be capable of being the exact physical incorporation into one another in precisely the manner illustrated in each reference. MPEP § 2145(III) explains that a determination of obviousness based on multiple references does not require actual physical substitution of elements; rather, the relevant inquiry is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Similarly, the prior art combination need not be established as the preferred or most desirable combination. MPEP § 2143 explains that the existence of other desirable alternatives does not negate a reason to modify or combine the prior art where the prior art as a whole provides sufficient reason for the proposed modification. Thus, the relevant inquiry is not whether Fest’s particular reimaged optical architecture can be physically incorporated into Jensen, but whether a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to apply Fest’s known position/alignment monitoring teaching to Jensen’s optical arrangement with a reasonable expectation that the technique would perform its known function.
Here, Fest provides that reason. Fest explains that during assembly it may be desirable to determine whether an optical component is correctly positioned and, during operation, whether the component has moved, and teaches using the optical system’s own detector for that purpose. See Fest [0001]-[0003]. Fest further teaches determining the position or alignment of an optical component relative to the detector using one or more light sources associated with the component and imaged onto the detector. See Fest [0016].
Jensen already provides a retroreflector and sensor arrangement in which radiation passing through the retroreflector is conducted to an optically downstream sensor. Jensen [0132]-[0137]. Fest further teaches that its technique using the existing system detector to obtain position measurements. Fest [0025]. Accordingly, the rejection is not based merely upon a finding that Jensen and Fest could physically be combined, nor does it require perfect correspondence between their illustrated optical architectures. Rather, Fest provides a reason for applying its known position/alignment monitoring technique to an optical arrangement having an existing detector, and the proposed application would have predictably provided the position/alignment monitoring function taught by Fest.
II. Fest Does Not Disclose the Referencing Assembly in the Claimed Functional and Spatial Relationship
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely upon Fest, standing alone, for Jensen’s retroreflecting element/downstream sensor architecture.
Jensen teaches a retroreflector 21 having a light entry surface 22 and passage surface 23, followed along the beam path by mirror 24 and sensor 25. Jensen [0136]-[0137]. Jensen further teaches that a non-reflected portion of the measurement radiation exits the retroreflector through passage surface 23 and is directed by mirror 24 onto sensor 25 for detection. Jensen [0142]-[0145].
Fest is relied upon for the referencing technique. Fest teaches a light source located on an optical component and directing electromagnetic radiation to detector 130. Fest further explains that the position of the light source relative to the component may be accurately established during manufacture or system setup, such that the image of the light source at detector 130 may be used to determine the position or alignment of the component relative to the detector. Fest [0019]. Fest teaches that the source may be an LED. Fest [0020].
Thus, Jensen provides the retroreflector and downstream sensor arrangement, while Fest provides the known reference illumination arrangement used to determine relative position/alignment.
A. Fest concerns a different optical architecture
Applicant argues that Fest is directed to a reimaged optical system having an intermediate image plane and therefore does not provide the claimed arrangement.
This argument is not persuasive because it treats Fest’s illustrated embodiment as a limitation on Fest’s broader position monitoring teaching. Fest states that the disclosed methods and apparatuses are not limited to the construction and arrangement of components illustrated and are capable of implementation in other embodiments and in various ways. Fest [0017].
More significantly, Fest addresses Applicant’s intermediate image plane argument. Fest [0023] explains that although locating component 150 at or near the intermediate image plane may provide the easiest implementation, components not located at the intermediate image plane may also have their position/alignment encoded onto detector 130.Therefore, Fest’s position monitoring teaching is not limited to the particular intermediate image plane arrangement emphasized by Applicant.
The rejection does not require Fest's disclosed system to be physically incorporated into Jensen. Rather, Fest’s known position/alignment monitoring technique is applied to Jensen’s already existing retroreflector/downstream sensor arrangement.
B. Fest’s monitored optical component and Fest’s optical retroreflector are different elements having different functions
Applicant argues that Fest’s component 150 may be a filter or polarizer and is functionally different from Jensen’s retroreflecting element.
This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Fest’s component 150 with Jensen’s retroreflector as structurally identical devices. Fest is relied upon for the technique of maintaining a known relationship between a reference light source and an optical component and detecting the resulting illumination at the system detector to determine the component’s relative position/alignment.
Fest [0019] states that component 150 may be any type of component used in an optical system, and teaches that light source 160 is located on the component with its position accurately established so that the detected image identifies the position/alignment of the component relative to detector 130. Fest [0024] further teaches that the light sources may be attached directly to the optical component or to a platform carrying the component, and may occupy fixed locations relative to the optical component.
III. The Office Action Does Not Establish a Motivation to Modify Jensen in the Claimed Manner
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The motivation for the proposed modification comes from Fest itself rather than from Applicant’s disclosure.
Fest explains that it is desirable to determine whether an optical component is correctly positioned during assembly and whether it has moved during operation. Fest [0001]. Fest then teaches using the optical system’s existing detector for this purpose. Fest [0002]-[0003]. Fest [0016] similarly describes determining the position or alignment of an optical component relative to the system detector by imaging reference sources associated with the component onto that detector.
Jensen already provides a retroreflector and an optically downstream sensor receiving radiation passing through the retroreflector. Jensen [0134], [0136]-[0137. Applying Fest’s known technique therefore predictably permits the existing detector arrangement to additionally provide information concerning the established position/alignment of the monitored optical component.
A. Fest addresses a problem that the Office Action does not identify in Jensen
Applicant argues that Jensen does not identify a movable filter, uncertainty concerning the internal position of its retroreflector relative to the sensor, a position encoder needing replacement, or another defect addressed by Fest.
This argument does not establish error in the rejection. The modification does not depend upon Jensen first identifying a malfunction or defect. Fest identifies the usefulness of monitoring whether an optical component remains correctly positioned or has moved and teaches obtaining such information using an existing detector. Fest [0001]-[0003], [0016].
Further, the proposed monitoring function is consistent with Jensen’s own concern with reliable and accurate optical orientation determination. Jensen identifies an objective of providing an improved, compact device providing more reliable and accurate orientation determination. Jensen [0013]. Jensen also determines orientation based upon radiation passing through the retroreflector and detected at its downstream sensor. Jensen [0134]-[0137].
B. The rejection shows, at most, that the references could be combined
Applicant argues that the Office has established only that Jensen and Fest could be combined, rather than explaining why a skilled artisan would have made the modification.
This argument is not persuasive. Fest identifies a need to determine whether an optical component is correctly positioned or has moved and teaches doing so using the optical system’s own detector. Fest [0001]-[0003]. Fest [0025] further teaches that its technique may be readily incorporated with the monitored component and using the existing system detector to obtain position measurements.
Jensen already has sensor 25 downstream of the retroreflector and uses that sensor to detect radiation transmitted through the retroreflector. Jensen [0136]-[0137], [0142]-[0145]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to apply Fest’s known reference light technique to Jensen’s arrangement to obtain additional component position/alignment information using the detector already present in Jensen’s optical arrangement.
IV. The alleged benefit of avoiding a separate encoder is not supported by Jensen
Applicant argues that Jensen does not contain a separate position encoder that would be eliminated by adding Fest’s reference light arrangement.
This argument has been considered. Jensen [0141] does disclose an angle encoder for determining the angular position of mirror 24 about rotational axis 26. However, the proposed modification does not require eliminating Jensen’s mirror angle encoder or sensor 25.
Rather, Fest teaches that the additional function of determining the position/alignment of an optical component can be accomplished by using an existing system detector instead of requiring a separate dedicated position measuring device. Fest [0016] teaches determining component position/alignment using the system detector itself, without requiring a mechanical position encoder or angle resolver. Fest [0025] similarly states that the technique using the existing detector and can remove the need for bulky dedicated position measuring devices or angle resolvers.
Thus, the benefit relied upon is not that Fest necessarily removes Jensen’s existing mirror angle encoder. Rather, Fest teaches providing the additional component position/alignment monitoring function using an already present detector, instead of requiring a separate detector or dedicated position measuring device for that additional function. Jensen already provides such a downstream sensor.
V. The Rejection Relies on Impermissible Hindsight
Applicant argues that the rejection reconstructs the claimed invention by first identifying the missing referencing assembly and then selecting portions of Fest based upon Applicant’s disclosure.
This argument is not persuasive because the individual teachings used in the combination are provided by the references themselves. Fest independently teaches: (1) determining the position/alignment of an optical component relative to the system detector; (2) attaching or associating reference-light sources with the monitored component; and (3) imaging those sources onto the existing detector. Fest [0016]. Fest [0019] teaches locating light source 160 on component 150 and establishing its relative position so that the detected source image identifies the position/alignment of the component. Fest [0020] identifies an LED as the emitting source, and Fest [0024] teaches direct attachment or placement at fixed locations relative to the monitored component.
Jensen independently teaches the retroreflector, passage surface, downstream sensor arrangement, and transmission of a portion of the measurement radiation through the retroreflector to the downstream sensor. Jensen [0132]-[0137], [0142]-[0145].
Accordingly, the proposed combination follows Fest’s position/alignment monitoring teaching and Jensen’s existing reflector/sensor arrangement, rather than from Applicant’s specification as a roadmap.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1-16. Jensen provides the claimed retroreflecting element and downstream sensor architecture, while Fest teaches associating reference illumination with an optical component in an established positional relationship and detecting the reference illumination at the existing detector to determine relative position/alignment. Fest further teaches that its technique is not limited to the illustrated intermediate image plane arrangement and that the light sources may be directly attached or positioned at fixed locations relative to the monitored component.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Concerning claim 17
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 17 have been considered and are persuasive. Vogel teaches a reflector arrangement having the reflector, imaging optics, and sensor in a predetermined optical relationship, but does not teach polishing the prearranged retroreflecting element together with its mounting element as a whole. Suzuki teaches bonding optical lens elements and thereafter grinding portions of the bonded optical elements together, but does not teach or suggest polishing a retro-reflecting element and its mounting element as a whole after pre-arrangement so as to prepare the passage surface and mounting element for fitting to a sensor arrangement. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn, and claim 17 is indicated as allowable.
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, 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 20200408520 A1, “Jensen”) in view of Fest et al. (US 2016/0103000 A1, “Fest”).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen teaches an optical detection unit (Figs. 1 and 2a.) comprising
a retro-reflecting element (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0132], [136]; reflector arrangement 20) which provides
a reflection surface configured for retro-reflecting a first part of 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.) as reflected measuring light for providing determination of a position of the optical detection unit (at least [0133]) and a passage surface 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),
a sensor arrangement with a sensor (Fig. 2a, sensor 25) configured and arranged subsequently of the retro-reflecting element so that the transmitted measuring light is detectable by the sensor ([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.),
Jensen fails to explicitly teach the optical detection unit comprises a referencing assembly with at least one illumination unit configured to emit reference illumination light, the at least one illumination unit is arranged with fixed positional relationship to the retro-reflecting element and/or the sensor arrangement and the referencing assembly is configured and arranged to direct the reference illumination light onto the sensor.
However, Fest teaches an optical position encoder in which at least one light source is associated with an optical component and reimaged onto an imaging detector, wherein the position of the image of the light source at the imaging detector encodes the position of the optical component relative to the imaging detector. Fest further teaches that the light source may be an LED and may be attached directly to the optical component or fixed relative to the optical component on a platform. See Fest Abstract, [0003-0004], [0016], [0019-0025], Figs. 1 and 4.
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’s retroreflector/sensor arrangement to include Fest’s light-source/image-position encoding arrangement because Jensen already uses a downstream sensor to detect radiation passing through the retroreflector, and Fest teaches using the optical system’s existing detector to determine whether an optical component is in the correct position or has moved, thereby avoiding a separate opto/electromechanical encoder and reducing size, weight, power, and cost.
Regarding claim 4, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the retro-reflecting element having a front boundary surface configured for entry of the measuring light into the retro- reflecting element (Jensen, Fig. 2a, [0136], [0142]. See also, [0058] and claim 28. Jensen teaches a prism/retroreflector with a light entry surface) and a back boundary surface comprising the reflection surface and the passage surface (Fig. 2a, [0136], [0142]. See also, [0035], [0058]- [0059]. Jensen teaches a passage surface opposite the light entry surface as an aperture, and that part of the measurement radiation passes through the reflector while the remainder is reflected back.), wherein the front boundary surface and the back boundary surface are arranged on different sides of the retro-reflecting element (Jensen teaches the passage surface is opposite the light entry surface, [0058] and claim 28.).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one wavelength-selective filter (Jensen teaches optical filtering using absorption glasses and/or dielectric interference filters placed in the beam path, for example at the light passage surface or in front of the detector (Jensen, [0159], Fig. 2a.) arranged between the retro-reflecting element and the sensor (Jensen’s filter placement at the light passage surface and/or in front of detector 25 is between the retroreflector passage surface and detector (0159).).
Regarding claim 9, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one illumination unit is configured to emit the reference illumination light with a particular wavelength different from a wavelength of the measuring light (Fest teaches an LED emitting at a selected wavelength or wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Jensen teaches wavelength filtering at the passage surface or in front of the detector, which supports separating different wavelengths reaching the sensor. It would have been obvious to select the Fest reference LED wavelength different from Jensen’s measuring-light wavelength so the sensor/filter can distinguish reference illumination from measuring radiation. See Fest [0020], claim 5; Jensen [0159].).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the optical detection unit comprises a mounting element configured to provide the retro-reflecting element so that the transmitted measuring light is detectable by the sensor (Jensen, Fig. 1, shows the reflector arrangement 20 is mounted on a surveying pole 11 and also sandwiched between 2 supports. See also, Figs. 13a and 13b).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Fest and Bridges et al. (US 2013/0250285 A1, “Bridges”).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen, in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the referencing assembly is configured and arranged to direct the reference illumination light through the retro- reflecting element onto the sensor, in particular through the passage surface.
However, Bridges explains a laser-tracker 6DOF target system in which an aperture is cut into the vertex of a cube-corner retroreflector, and light passing through the aperture strikes a position detector, thereby providing pitch and yaw information. See Bridges [0010] and [0015].
Bridges also teaches a target 400 having a retroreflector 410 and position sensor assembly 430 with position detectors 432, where the laser beam/pattern interacts with the target and position detectors to determine orientation. See Bridges Abstract, [0042], [0064-0069], Figs. 1, 5, 11A-11B.
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’s optical detection unit, to direct the reference illumination through Jensen’s passage surface/aperture as taught by Bridges because Jensen already provides a passage surface through the retroreflector to a downstream sensor and Bridges teaches that light may pass through an aperture in a cube-corner retroreflector to a position detector for orientation measurement. The modification would have predictably used Jensen’s existing through-retroreflector optical path to deliver the reference illumination to the downstream sensor without adding a separate detector or external reference-light path.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Fest and Halbritter et al. (US 20180088215 A1, “Halbritter”).
Regarding claim 3, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one illumination unit is provided as a light emitting diode (LED) and the LED is directly arranged on the retro-reflecting element (Fest teaches that the light source may be a light emitting diode in a visible-waveband sensor arrangement, and that the optical component has a light source attached thereto and reimaged onto the detector. Fest also shows multiple light sources 160 positioned on/associated with platform or optical component 150 in Fig. 4. See Fest [0003-0004], [0007-0008], [0016], claims 1, 5, 13, 15, Fig. 1.).
Jensen, in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach in particular wherein the LED is an ultra-small LED having a side length of less than 250 µm, in particular less than 200 µm.
Halbritter teaches a measuring system with an LED lighting unit having a characteristic longitudinal extent of less than or equal to 100 μm, which is smaller than both 250 μm and 200 μm. Halbritter also teaches that reducing LED chip size or subdividing the chip into individually controllable luminous segments improves switching performance, and discusses a chip with an edge length of approximately 200 μm. See Halbritter Abstract, [0054-0055], Figs. 2-6B and 8C-8D.
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’s retroreflector/sensor arrangement, to include an ultra-small LED as taught by Halbritter. Doing so, would have been to provide a compact, low-mass reference illumination source directly on Jensen’s retro-reflecting element, thereby reducing package size and improving fixed positional accuracy between the LED reference source and the retroreflector.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Fest and Jensen et al. (US 2015/0253137 A1, “Jensen 3137”)
Regarding claim 10, Jensen in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach but Jensen 3137 teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the optical detection unit comprises a pattern layer, in particular a code element (Jensen 3137 teaches a sensor arrangement having a code element 31 with a substrate 33 and a code pattern 32 applied onto the substrate ([0096], Fig. 4a). Jensen 3137 also teaches a specific code element 55 having code pattern 53 ([0115], Figs. 5a-5b.)), arranged between the retro- reflecting element and the sensor (Jensen 3137 teaches that the code element and sensor are rigidly connected at a defined spacing, and that the code pattern projection is detected on the sensor ([0018-0024], [0050], [0096-0100], Figs. 4a-4b.). See also, Fig. 6, [0126]; A signal representing the location of the projection (in the case where a code element is used rather than the lens) ), wherein the pattern layer provides a pattern (Jensen 3137 teaches that code element 31 has regions 34a, 34b, where dark regions are opaque and other regions are transmissive for illumination radiation, thereby providing a code pattern ([0096-0100], Fig. 4a. Jensen 3137 also teaches a diagonal code pattern 53 having different stripe directions ([0115-0117], Figs. 5a-5b.)) which is projectable onto the sensor (Jensen 3137 teaches that the code pattern is projectable onto sensor 11 when illuminated, producing a projection corresponding to the code pattern on the sensor ([0099-0100], Fig. 4a). Jensen 3137 further teaches that a projection of code pattern 53 occurs on line sensor 52 upon illumination of code element 55 ([0115], Fig. 5b.)) by means of the transmitted measuring light (Jensen 3137 teaches that illumination radiation 25 may be the measurement radiation, for example laser radiation from a surveying system, and that the code pattern is projected onto the sensor when illuminated ([0097] and [0124-0125].) and/or by means of the reference illumination light.
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’s optical detection unit, to include Jensen 3137’s code element/code pattern in the optical path between the retroreflecting element and the sensor because Jensen already detects transmitted measuring radiation with a downstream sensor and Jensen 3137 teaches that a code pattern projected onto a sensor provides position-sensitive image information for determining inclination/orientation. The modification would have predictably improved the detected reference or transmitted-light image by providing a coded pattern instead of an uncoded light spot, thereby improving the ability to determine displacement, alignment, or state changes of the optical detection unit.
Claims 5, 12-15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Fest and Goldstein (US 2017/0004615 A1, “Goldstein”).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 4, wherein the at least one illumination unit is arranged on the front boundary surface, (in particular glued or cemented on the front boundary surface).
Jensen teaches a retro-reflecting prism having a light entry surface corresponding to the claimed front boundary surface and a passage surface opposite the light entry surface. See Jensen [0151], Fig. 3a, and claim 28. Fest teaches an illumination/light-source arrangement in which light source 160 may be attached directly to the optical component whose position is to be determined and reimaged onto the detector. See Fest [0007-0008], [0024], Figs. 1 and 4.
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’s retro-reflecting element to arrange Fest’s light source on the light-entry/front boundary surface because Fest teaches attaching the light source directly to the optical component whose position is to be monitored, and Jensen’s front boundary surface provides a fixed surface of the retro-reflecting element. The modification would have predictably maintained a stable fixed positional relationship between the reference illumination source and the retro-reflecting element so that the reference illumination image could be used to monitor position or alignment.
Jensen, in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach that the illumination unit is glued or cemented on the front boundary surface.
However, Goldstein teaches that monitoring components may be temporarily attached using double-sided adhesive tape, or more permanently attached using epoxy or other adhesives, chemical attachment, or mechanical attachment systems ([0055)].
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’s retro-reflecting element to secure the illumination unit on the light-entry/front boundary surface using Goldstein’s adhesive attachment technique. Doing so, would have been a predictable way to maintain the required fixed positional relationship and prevent relative movement between the illumination unit and the retro-reflecting element.
Regarding claim 12, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches an optical system comprising:
an optical detection unit according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1) and
a controlling and processing unit wherein the 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].) comprises a monitoring functionality configured to:
provide the reference illumination light by means of the at least one illumination unit (Fest teaches an optical position-encoding system in which light source 160 is located on optical component 150 and directs electromagnetic radiation 165 to detector 130. Fest further teaches that light source 160 may be an emitter, such as an LED, emitting selected wavelength light. See Fest [0019-0020], Fig. 1.),
by means of the sensor, acquire image information related to the reference illumination light directed to the sensor (Fest teaches that the light source associated with the optical component is reimaged onto the imaging detector, and the detector acquires an image of that light source. Fest explains that the position of the image of the light source at the detector encodes the position of the optical component relative to the detector. See Fest [0003], [0019], [0025], Figs. 1 and 4.),
determine at least one actual image information of an illumination of the sensor provided by the reference illumination light (Fest uses the actual position of the image of the light source on detector 130 to determine the position or alignment of optical component 150 relative to detector 130. Fest further teaches that the position of light source 160 on component 150 may be accurately established during manufacture or setup, so the image position on detector 130 can be used to accurately determine the position/alignment of the component. See Fest [0019]. Fest also teaches that multiple light sources may be used for more accurate position information and may be placed at fixed locations relative to the optical component. See Fest [0024], Fig. 4.),
Jensen, in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach compare the actual image information with a nominal image information for nominal illumination of the sensor by means of the at least one illumination unit, derive a deviation information based on the comparing of the actual image information and the nominal image information, the deviation information being an indication for a state of the optical detection unit, and provide the deviation information.
However, Goldstein teaches a projector unit with a diffuse light source, coded mask, and lens, where the projector is aligned with a camera to receive a focused image; shifts in the image indicate relative motion between the camera and projector unit. See Goldstein Abstract.
Goldstein further teaches that if either structural component moves, there is corresponding movement of the projected image on the camera, allowing the system to track relative alignment of the structures to which the elements are attached. Goldstein also teaches that the received camera image is compared to a reference image to determine the relative positions of the projector element and camera element, thereby determining alignment between the structural elements. See Goldstein [0038], [0042], Figs. 5A-5C.
Goldstein also teaches providing the information because it describes displaying the real-time camera image and tiltmeter information, recording measured image shifts, and using image analysis software to process the measured shifts. See Goldstein [0049].
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, in view of Fest, to include Goldstein’s actual/reference image comparison and deviation-monitoring technique because Fest already teaches imaging a reference light source on a detector to encode optical-component position, and Goldstein teaches comparing a received reference image with a reference image to determine relative position/alignment changes between components. The modification would predictably allow Jensen/Fest’s reference-light image on the sensor to be compared with nominal image information so that deviation information indicating the state/alignment of the retroreflector/sensor arrangement can be derived and provided.
Regarding claim 13, Jensen, in view of Fest, teaches an optical system comprising:
an optical detection unit according to claim 11 (See the rejection of claim 11) and
a controlling and processing unit wherein the 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].) comprises a monitoring functionality configured to:
provide the reference illumination light by means of the at least one illumination unit (Fest teaches an optical position-encoding system in which light source 160 is located on optical component 150 and directs electromagnetic radiation 165 to detector 130. Fest further teaches that light source 160 may be an emitter, such as an LED, emitting selected wavelength light. See Fest [0019-0020], Fig. 1.),
by means of the sensor, acquire image information related to the reference illumination light directed to the sensor (Fest teaches that the light source associated with the optical component is reimaged onto the imaging detector, and the detector acquires an image of that light source. Fest explains that the position of the image of the light source at the detector encodes the position of the optical component relative to the detector. See Fest [0003], [0019], [0025], Figs. 1 and 4.),
determine at least one actual image information of an illumination of the sensor provided by the reference illumination light (Fest uses the actual position of the image of the light source on detector 130 to determine the position or alignment of optical component 150 relative to detector 130. Fest further teaches that the position of light source 160 on component 150 may be accurately established during manufacture or setup, so the image position on detector 130 can be used to accurately determine the position/alignment of the component. See Fest [0019]. Fest also teaches that multiple light sources may be used for more accurate position information and may be placed at fixed locations relative to the optical component. See Fest [0024], Fig. 4.),
Jensen, in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach compare the actual image information with a nominal image information for nominal illumination of the sensor by means of the at least one illumination unit, derive a deviation information based on the comparing of the actual image information and the nominal image information, the deviation information being an indication for a state of the optical detection unit, and provide the deviation information.
However, Goldstein teaches a projector unit with a diffuse light source, coded mask, and lens, where the projector is aligned with a camera to receive a focused image; shifts in the image indicate relative motion between the camera and projector unit. See Goldstein Abstract.
Goldstein further teaches that if either structural component moves, there is corresponding movement of the projected image on the camera, allowing the system to track relative alignment of the structures to which the elements are attached. Goldstein also teaches that the received camera image is compared to a reference image to determine the relative positions of the projector element and camera element, thereby determining alignment between the structural elements. See Goldstein [0038], [0042], Figs. 5A-5C.
Goldstein also teaches providing the information because it describes displaying the real-time camera image and tiltmeter information, recording measured image shifts, and using image analysis software to process the measured shifts. See Goldstein [0049].
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, in view of Fest, to include Goldstein’s actual/reference image comparison and deviation-monitoring technique because Fest already teaches imaging a reference light source on a detector to encode optical-component position, and Goldstein teaches comparing a received reference image with a reference image to determine relative position/alignment changes between components. The modification would predictably allow Jensen/Fest’s reference-light image on the sensor to be compared with nominal image information so that deviation information indicating the state/alignment of the retroreflector/sensor arrangement can be derived and provided.
Claims 14-15 are method claims corresponding to system claims 12-13. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Jensen, in view of Fest and Goldstein teaches the method according to claim 14, wherein based on the provided deviation information, deriving compensation data for the optical detection unit, the compensation data provides information about a state of the retro-reflecting element and/or the sensor arrangement (Goldstein explains that when structural components move, the projected image on the camera moves, allowing the system to track relative alignment of the structures. Goldstein further teaches that a computer processor receives and processes the camera image and tiltmeter data, and that the image from the camera and the tiltmeter measurement are displayed. See Goldstein [0037-0038].
Goldstein also teaches that the shift effects of rotational/tilt motion measured by the tiltmeter can be subtracted from the total image shift so that translational motion can be determined. Goldstein further teaches that image analysis software can receive tiltmeter data and subtract rotational effects from measured shifts in the mask image to isolate relative translational motion of the projector unit and camera. See Goldstein [0048-0049].).
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’s optical detection unit, with Goldstein, to derive compensation data based on the provided deviation information. Doing so, will improve the reliability of the state-monitoring method by converting the detected image deviation into corrected alignment/state information by indicating the state of the retro-reflecting element and/or sensor arrangement.
Claims 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Fest and Lake Rick (US 20130237002 A1, “Lake”).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen in view of Fest, fails to explicitly teach the optical detection unit according to claim 1, wherein the optical detection unit comprises a spacer which is arranged between the retro-reflecting element and the sensor.
Lake teaches the missing spacer. Lake teaches an imager module including an imager pixel array 106, lens element 111, and spacer 109, where spacer 109 maintains lens element 111 at a proper distance from imager pixel array 106 so that light striking lens element 111 is directed appropriately to the imager pixel array. Lake also teaches that spacer 109 may be bonded to the imager die by bonding material such as epoxy. See Lake [0004], Fig. 1.
Lake further teaches a finished combination spacer lens wafer having a combination spacer portion 495 that acts as a spacer for separating the lens portion 490 a specific distance from imager pixel array 106. See Lake [0054], Figs. 12A-12B.
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’s optical detection unit to include Lake’s spacer between the retro-reflecting element and the sensor. Doing so, would have predictably improved fixed spacing, optical alignment, and assembly repeatability between Jensen’s retro-reflecting element and sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Jensen in view of Fest and Lake, teaches the optical detection unit according to claim 6, wherein the reference assembly, in particular the illumination unit, is arranged on the spacer or on the absorption filter.
Jensen teaches that optical filtering may be provided using absorption glasses and/or dielectric interference filters, and that these filter elements can be placed in the beam path, for example at the light passage surface or in front of the detector 25. See Jensen [0159].
Fest teaches the missing placement of the illumination unit on a filter/optical component. Fest teaches that a light source may be associated with an optical component and reimaged onto an imaging detector, where the position of the light-source image at the detector encodes the position of the optical component relative to the detector. Fest further teaches that the optical component may be a filter, and that the light source may be an LED. See Fest [0003-0004], [0007-0008].
Fest also teaches that the light source(s) may be attached directly to the optical component 150, and gives an example where optical component 150 is a filter mounted on platform 400 with light sources 160 positioned at fixed locations relative to that filter. See Fest [0024], Fig. 4.
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’s optical detection unit so that the reference illumination unit is arranged on Jensen’s absorption/filter element, as taught by Fest. Doing so, would have predictably provided a compact reference-light arrangement fixed to the filter/sensor-side optical structure, allowing the existing detector to monitor alignment or positional changes without adding a separate detector or separate mounting structure.
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
