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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “displacement mechanism” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laycock et al. (“Bessel beams: their generation and application”, 1992) (hereinafter, “Laycock).
Regarding claim 1, Laycock teaches a standard-light generator for straightness measurement, comprising;
a light source (He/Ne laser with mirrors and expansion lens, figure 13), and
a light shielding plate disposed at a position irradiated with light from the light source (discloses annular mask, figure 4b, section 3. 1.2. The mask), wherein
the light shielding plate has a circular-ring-shaped light transparency slit (figure 13),
the light source is disposed on a slit axis through a center of a circumference of the light transparency slit and perpendicular to the light shielding plate, and directed to the light shielding plate (figure 13, section 3.1.3. Pre-mask optics), and
the light source has an emission characteristic where a light beam emitted from one point on the slit axis has a divergence angle so that a whole area of the light transparency slit is irradiated with the light beam (figure 13).
Regarding claim 2, Laycock teaches a method of providing a standard for straightness measurement, comprising;
a disposition step of disposing a light source, which has a beam emission divergence angle, to a circular ring-shaped light transparency slit provided in a light shielding plate at a position on a slit axis through a center of a circumference of the light transparency slit and perpendicular to the light shielding plate, so that a whole area of the light transparency slit is irradiated with a light beam emitted with the divergence angle from one point on the slit axis in the light source (section 1 Introduction),
a first observation step (figure 18a) of irradiating the whole area of the light transparency slit with light beam emitted from one point in the light source, observing irradiance by diffraction light waves from the light transparency slit on a first observation plane (z = 2m) in an emission side of the light shielding plate (section 3.3. Demonstrator evaluation), and specifying a position at which the irradiance has a peak due to interference of the diffraction light waves (figure 18a),
a second observation step (figure 18b) of irradiating the whole area of the light transparency slit with light beam emitted from one point in the light source, observing irradiance by diffraction light waves from the light transparency slit on a second observation plane (z=4m) in parallel with the first observation plane (discloses first observation z=2m and second observation plane z=4m) and different in distance to the light shielding plate from the first observation plane in the emission side of the light shielding plate, and specifying a position at which the irradiance has a peak due to interference of the diffraction light waves (figure 18b), and
a third observation step (figure 18c) of irradiating the whole area of the light transparency slit with light beam from one point in the light source, observing irradiance by diffraction light waves from the light transparency slit on a third observation plane (z=6m) in parallel to the first and second observation planes and different in distance to the light shielding plate from the first and second observation planes (discloses first observation z=2m, second observation plane z=4m, and third observation plane z=6m) in the emission side of the light shielding plate, and specifying a position at which the irradiance has a peak due to interference of the diffraction light waves (figure 18c).
Regarding claim 3, Laycock teaches wherein the light source is a single-wavelength light source excepting a He-Ne laser source(discloses He-Ne laser at 543 nm, figure 13).
Regarding claim 4, Laycock teaches wherein the light source is a coherent light source excepting a He-Ne laser source (discloses He-Ne laser at 543 nm, figure 13).
Regarding claim 5, Laycock teaches wherein the light source is a laser source excepting a He-Ne laser source(discloses He-Ne laser at 543 nm, figure 13).
Regarding claim 6, Laycock teaches wherein the light shielding plate (figure 13) has a structure where light is diffused for shielding at areas excepting the light transparent transparency slit (discloses flat glass plate, annular mask, figure 4b, section 3. 1.2. The mask).
Regarding claim 7, Laycock teaches wherein the light shielding plate has a substrate transparent to light from the light source and a shielding film formed on the substrate(discloses flat glass plate, annular mask, figure 4b, section 3. 1.2. The mask),
the shielding film has the circular-ring-shaped light transparency slit (figure 13), and
the shielding film is formed on an emission side surface of the substrate (section 3. 1.2. The mask).
Regarding claim 8, Laycock teaches wherein an interface between the shielding film and the substrate is a diffusing surface in the light shielding plate except for the circular-ring-shaped light transparency slit (figure 13, section 3. 1.2. The mask) .
Regarding claim 9, Laycock teaches wherein an optical element to reduce a divergence angle of the light beam emitted from the one point in the light source is disposed on an incident side of the light shielding plate (figure 13, section 3.1.3 Pre-mask optics ).
Regarding claim 12, Laycock teaches a displacement mechanism for displacing the photoreceiver in a length direction of a long object as the photoreceiver is in contact with a surface of the object while the standard-light generator is in a stationary state (figure 13).
Regarding claim 13, Laycock teaches wherein the light shielding plate has a substrate and a shielding film formed on the substrate(figure 13), the substrate is made of glass and transparent to light from the light source, and the shielding film has the circular-ring-shaped light transparency slit (discloses flat glass plate, annular mask, figure 4b, section 3. 1.2. The mask).
Regarding claim 14, Laycock teaches wherein the substrate is made of glass(discloses flat glass plate, section 3. 1.2. The mask).
Regarding claim 15, Laycock teaches wherein the substrate is made of glass(discloses flat glass plate, section 3. 1.2. The mask).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laycock et al. (“Bessel beams: their generation and application”, 1992) (hereinafter, “Laycock) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 1444013 A)(hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 10, Laycock fails to disclose wherein the optical element is a condenser lens ().
Zhang teaches wherein the optical element is a condenser lens (a convex lens, is used as part of a beam expander to control the shape and divergence of the laser beam, [0018] and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a condenser lens of Zhang to Laycock to improve uniform illumination.
Regarding claim 11, Laycock fails to disclose a photoreceiver disposed on an emission side of to the standard-light generator, and
a process unit capable of executing data processing for straightness measurement, wherein,
the photoreceiver is capable of outputting an energy distribution of incident light in at least one dimension, and
the process unit is capable of executing data processing to measure straightness by specifying a position at which the incident light has an energy peak in the output energy distribution.
Zhang teaches a standard light generator as claimed in the claim 1 (“a device for generating a non-diffracting light spatial straightness datum, [0005]),
a photoreceiver (sensor, used to detect the center of the light ring, [0011]) disposed on an emission side of to the standard-light generator (discloses the sensor observes the beam after it has passed through the non-diffracting light generator and detects light as it arrives at various cross sections, “the center of the nondiffracting light ring of a certain cross section is located as a point on the axis. The collection of the centers of the light rings of all cross sections represents the axis of the non-diffracting light, which forms the benchmark for measuring the straightness error” [0020]), and
a process unit (discloses computing or determining a benchmark from multiple measured centers, inherently requires a process unit, [0020]) capable of executing data processing ( discloses computing a straightness axis by analyzing multiple ring centers, which requires data processing of sensor outputs, “collection of the centers of the light rings of all cross sections represents the axis”, [0020]) for straightness measurement (straightness error measurement, [0005]),
wherein,
the photoreceiver (sensor, used to detect the center of the light ring, [0011]) is capable of outputting an energy distribution (discloses the sensor detects light rings in cross sections of the beam, inherently requiring the detection of the spatial intensity pattern of the beam cross section, [0020]) of incident light (discloses the sensor observes the beam after it has passed through the non-diffracting light generator and detects light as it arrives at various cross sections, [0020]) in at least one dimension (discloses detection of ring centers inherently requires 1D or 2D spatial resolution, [0020]) and
the process unit (discloses computing or determining a benchmark from multiple measured centers, inherently requires a process unit, [0020]) is capable of executing data processing ( discloses computing a straightness axis by analyzing multiple ring centers, which requires data processing of sensor outputs, “collection of the centers of the light rings of all cross sections represents the axis”, [0020]) to measure straightness (straightness error measurement, [0005]) by specifying a position (“the center of the nondiffracting light ring of a certain cross section is located as a point on the axis”, [0020]) at which the incident light has an energy peak (the ring centers, detecting the ring centers inherent requires detecting spatial peaks in the intensity pattern of that cross section, [0020]) in the output energy distribution (inherently discloses a sensor that captures and outputs light intensity patterns and analyzes this output to identify ring centers, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate a photoreceiver with a processing unit of Zhang to Laycock to enable real time correction and calibration, thereby improving accuracy.
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 CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights