DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim cites “the surface” (line 2), “the field” (line 5, line 6) with insufficient antecedent basis requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/system.
Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitations of modelling the presence of a rotational component and jointly searching for a gradient component and rotational components of alignment errors. These limitations are analyzed including concepts directed to “mathematical concepts” that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- measuring a slope field – obtaining information (MPEP 2106.05(g));
- integrating the slope field - Insignificant solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, measuring a slope field and integrating the slope field, are well known in the field as evidenced by Applicant’s discussion in the background section of the Specification, do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding to claim 1: Regarding to the limitation “alignment errors”, the Specification does not specific on such errors; in particular, the Specification does not discuss on the alignment, so it is unclear what alignment is to look at to determine its errors. In addition, it is unclear if such alignment is the alignment between the components of the deflectometric device. The claim language, in fact, cites only one component of the deflectometric device, that is the reflective surface; as a result, it is unclear which components that the reflective surface aligns to.
Furthermore, the Specification simply teaches “The alignment errors comprise a gradient component and a rotational component” without further discussion to enable one of ordinary skill how to obtain such rotational component of the alignment errors.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admission as prior art and in view of Risner et al. (US 2016/0025591).
Applicant, in the background of the invention (US 2024/0219171), discusses a method for estimating a geometry of a reflective surface (paragraph [0002]: A reflective surface of an object), comprising the steps of
measuring a slope field of the surface by a deflectometric device connected to a measurement processing computer (paragraph [0004]: It is possible to measure the slope field of the surface of the object),
then of integrating, by the measurement processing computer, the slope field in order to reconstruct the geometry of said reflective surface (paragraph [0004]: The slope field, once integrated, makes it possible to reconstruct the geometry of the surface of the object) by modelling the presence of a rotational component in the field and a gradient component of said field of the deflectometric device (paragraph [0004]: The slope field comprises a gradient-type component and a rotational-type component).
Applicant, in the background of the invention, however does not discuss about alignment errors of the deflectomertic device, and rotational components of the alignment errors.
Risner et al. discloses a calibration phase in a deflectomery system, wherein the deviations (error) between the patterns as reflected in the reflector under scrutiny and the pattern as reflected in a calibration surface can be used to determine a slope profile for the reflector being measured (paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art system as admitted by Applicant to also consider the deviation/error in determination of the slope field to gain the accuracy by minimizing the susceptibility of the system to physical disturbances as taught by Risner et al. (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding to claims 7-8: wherein the reflective surface is a mirror or an aspherical mirror (Resiner et al.: paragraph [0019]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights