DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 04/3/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 10/03/2025. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made of Rohaly and Saphier in view of Stenger et al. (PGPUB 2012/0287247).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
5- Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly (PGPUB 2019/0394372) in view of Stenger et al. (PGPUB 2012/0287247)
As to claims 2-3, Rohaly teaches a device (Abstract and Figs. 1-11) comprising: an imaging volume within a conformable imaging medium (116) defining a three-dimensional field of view for capturing images (Fig. 1 and ¶ 23-28 for ex.); an imaging device (106) having an imaging axis (117) passing through the imaging volume (Fig. 1); a plane intersecting the imaging volume and perpendicular to the imaging axis of the imaging device (Fig. 1, all the geometric planes inside 116 and that are perpendicular to 117); a light source (108) providing illumination (¶ 23-28 for ex.); and an optical element (110) positioned and structured to receive the illumination from the light source on a first surface (112) and create a pattern within the imaging volume from a second surface opposing the first surface and (claim 3) wherein the optical element includes a diffractive optical element, the device further comprising a second diffractive optical element positioned and structured to create a second pattern within the imaging volume for a different location about a perimeter of the imaging volume than the diffractive optical element (¶ 32-33; either surface 114 or 122 or the combination thereof that has a portion opposing 112; which include microlenses, gratings or the like to shape light into a pattern within 116 at different locations), the second surface at an angle to the plane intersecting the imaging volume (Fig. 1, ¶ 30 for 122 or ¶ 25 for 114 can be convex).
and a processor (¶ 52-53 for ex.) configured to: acquire a plurality of images of the imaging volume from the imaging device, directly measure quantitative depth information from a surface of the conformable imaging medium at a first resolution based on the plurality of images using a first imaging modality (¶ 4-5, 24-28, 33; variable focus imaging to capture topographical data, i.e. volume/depth data, of sample).
Rohaly does not teach expressly the processor additionally configured to resolve the quantitative depth information from the surface into a second resolution higher than the first resolution using photometric stereo based on the illumination from the light source.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Stenger teaches systems and method to capture 3D geometries of sample 1 (Abstract and Figs. 1-28), a processor additionally configured to resolve the quantitative depth information from the surface into a second resolution higher than the first resolution using photometric stereo based on the illumination from the light source (¶ 207, 228 for ex.; where depth images of low resolution are enhanced by additionally using stereo-photometric techniques).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Rohaly in view of Stenger’s suggestions so that the processor additionally configured to resolve the quantitative depth information from the surface into a second resolution higher than the first resolution using photometric stereo based on the illumination from the light source, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the mapping of the sample 3D topography.
Moreover, Rohaly teaches:
(claims 4-5) wherein the processor is configured to directly measure quantitative depth information using a stack of locally focused images at a plurality of focal depths (¶ 22, 30, 33); (Claim 5) wherein the surface includes a deformable surface of the conformable imaging medium intersecting the imaging volume (Abstract, 24-26 for ex.; elastomeric surface, i.e. deformable).
(claim 6) further comprising a multi-view imaging system configured to calculate a quantitative surface topography of a surface within the three-dimensional field of view based on images of the surface from two or more different perspectives (¶ 29, 47 for ex.)
(claim 7) further comprising a multi-view imaging system that resolves a three-dimensional shape of the surface using a second spectral band having wavelengths non-overlapping with a first spectral band of the light source (¶ 32).
(claim 8) further comprising a second light source providing illumination in the second spectral band (¶ 6, 23, 32; multiple sources are used with color filters).
(claim 9) further comprising an imaging cartridge (102) positioned at least partially within the imaging volume (Fig. 1), the imaging cartridge including the conformable imaging medium on a first side facing the imaging device and an optical coating on a second side opposing the imaging device (Fig. 1 and ¶ 5, 26, 28).
(claims 10, 12) wherein the conformable imaging medium includes a soft, optically clear elastomer (¶ 6, 26-27, 33, 37-50).
(claim 11) further comprising an imaging cartridge including a retrographic sensor positioned within the imaging volume (¶ 26, 28, 30-32; reflecting coating with camera).
(claim 13) further comprising a liquid lens (206) configured to focus the imaging device on a surface within the imaging volume (¶ 6, 30, 42; the elastomer element as a liquid element).
(claim 14) further comprising a lens configured to change a focus along the imaging axis through the imaging volume (¶ 27, 33, 42).
(claim 15) wherein the optical element includes a diffractive optical element having micropatterned structures configured to create the pattern within the imaging volume from the light source incident on the first surface (¶ 33 for ex.)
(claim 17) wherein the pattern includes a three-dimensional pattern varying along the imaging axis within the imaging volume (the diffraction patterns created by the microlenses or gratings vary along the depth of field).
As to amended claim 1, Rohaly teaches a device comprising: an imaging volume defining a three-dimensional field of view for capturing images; a camera having an imaging axis passing through the imaging volume; a plane intersecting the imaging volume and perpendicular to the imaging axis of the imaging device; a laser providing illumination including fixed-focus, coherent light; a diffractive optical element positioned to receive the illumination from the laser on a first surface, the first surface of the diffractive optical element including micropatterned structures to create a three-dimensional illumination pattern within the imaging volume from a second surface opposing the first surface; a liquid lens configured to focus the camera on a target surface of an object within the imaging volume; an imaging cartridge removably and replaceably coupled to the device, the imaging cartridge including a rigid substrate and an elastomeric optical element having a soft, optically clear elastomer on a first side facing the camera and a thin, reflective coating on a second side opposing the camera; and a processor configured by instructions stored in a memory to receive an image from the camera of the pattern reflected by the thin, reflective coating of the elastomeric optical element as it deforms to the surface of the object within the imaging volume, the processor further configured by instructions stored in the memory to calculate a quantitative surface topography of the surface based on the image by using local focus along the imaging axis acquired with the liquid lens to resolve three-dimensional surface data for the surface, along with photometric stereo to refine the three-dimensional surface data into higher resolution surface measurements across the surface (see new rejection of claims 2, 4, 9-14)
6- Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly and Stenger in view of Saphier al. (PGPUB No. 2019/0388193, cited by Applicants)
As to claims 16, 18-20, the combination of Rohaly and Stenger teaches the device of claim 2.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the optical element includes metasurfaces configured to create the pattern within the imaging volume from the light incident on the first surface; (claim 18) wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features closely spaced within the plane and a second plurality of features visually distinguishable from the first plurality of features and more distantly spaced within the plane; (claim 19) wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features and a second plurality of features collectively forming a regular geometric pattern within the plane, the second plurality of features forming visually distinguishable anchor points within the pattern; (amended claim 20) wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features closely spaced to provide high resolution detection of depth within the imaging volume and a second plurality of features placed farther apart to support detection during a maximum expected deformation of a contact surface of an elastomeric optical element along each of an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis within the imaging volume.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Saphier teaches a 3D optical scanner using miniature pattern projectors (Abstract and Figs. 1-32) wherein microlens array based diffractive periodic structures (Figs. 19-21 for ex.), i.e. metasurfaces, to create pattern within a measuring volume (¶ 328-332, 339); (Claims 18-20) the dots of at least one DOE can be different than those generated from another DOE (¶ 47, 71, 133, 296 for ex.), which suggest to one PHOSITA to include such configurations and patterns into Rohaly device to read onto the claimed structures and volume, i.e. xyz, distributions with an intended results of optimizing the light projections on the object to be measured (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Rohaly and Stenger in view of Saphier’s suggestions so that the optical element includes metasurfaces configured to create the pattern within the imaging volume from the light incident on the first surface; wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features closely spaced within the plane and a second plurality of features visually distinguishable from the first plurality of features and more distantly spaced within the plane; wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features and a second plurality of features collectively forming a regular geometric pattern within the plane, the second plurality of features forming visually distinguishable anchor points within the pattern; wherein the pattern includes a first plurality of features closely spaced to provide high resolution detection of depth within the imaging volume and a second plurality of features placed farther apart to support detection during a maximum expected deformation of a contact surface of an elastomeric optical element along each of an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis within the imaging volume, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the light projections on the object to be measured.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights