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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “contagent” which should read cotangent. Claim 16 defines ⊖ which is not included in the claimed equation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Each of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recites “calculating, by a processor, a series of measurements of vertical displacement” which is unclear. It is unclear whether it is the same processor recited earlier in the claim, or a second processor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 17 and 18 are identical to claims 3 and 4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5207766 to Conforti.
Regarding Claim 1, Conforti discloses a non-contact method for measuring vibration on a surface of an object (Figs. 1-7, Fiber-optic Vibration Sensor; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16), comprising: projecting light from one or more light sources towards an area of interest on a surface of an object, where the light projected from the one or more light sources is incident on at least one point on the surface of the object (Figs. 1-7, infrared light generated by LED 14 through optical fibers 7 and 9 ending in respective cylindrical lenses 10 and 12 projected on instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16); detecting the light diffusely reflected by the surface of the object using one or more detectors (Figs. 1-7, optical fibers 7 or 9 recording instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1 with photodiode 16 for detection of diffusively reflected light; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16); for each of the one or more detectors, determining, by a processor, a change in position of the reflected light detected by the detector over time, where the processor is interfaced with each of the one or more detectors (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 which is appropriately programmed to carry out Fourier transformation of digital signal obtained by transformation of current signal recorded by photodiode 16 recording instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20); for the at least one point on the surface of the object, calculating, by the processor, a series of measurements of vertical displacement of the surface over a period of time from the change in position of the reflected light and using triangulation (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 using optical triangulation system for signal recorded by photodiode 16 recording instantaneous positions of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 1, lines 51-65, Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20); and determining frequency of a disturbance of the surface at the at least one point on the surface and an amplitude of the disturbance using the series of measurements of vertical displacement (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 determining amplitude and frequency of vibration from instantaneous positions of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20).
Regarding Claim 2, Conforti discloses vertical displacement is calculated according to Dz = [(I⋆s1) - zd′] / [(d′ + i⋆Contagent (⊖)))] where d′ is distance between where the reflected light is incident on the detector and a reference point on the detector, i is distance between the detector and receiving lens associate therewith, z is length of an altitude of a triangle when the object is not subject to external forces, s1 is a segment of a base of the triangle between the detector and intersection of the altitude, and Θ is angle between the projection axis and a base plane, wherein a line between the light source and the detector lies in the base plane, the base plane is parallel to the surface of the object, and the triangle is formed by the light source, the detector and the point of interest (Col. 4, line 20 – Col. 8, line 28; while not expressly defined in terms of cotangents, the calculation expresses dx in terms of the claimed angle and distances).
Regarding Claim 7, Conforti discloses attaching diffusively reflective material to an area on the surface of the object (Claim 1, providing a diffusing screen on said vibratable element).
Regarding Claim 15, Conforti discloses non-contact method for measuring vibration on a surface of an object (Figs. 1-7, Fiber-optic Vibration Sensor; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16), comprising: projecting light from one or more light sources towards an area of interest on a surface of an object, where the light projected from the one or more light sources is incident on at least one point on the surface of the object and the projection axis of the light from the one or more light sources is perpendicular to the surface of the object (Figs. 1-7, infrared light generated by LED 14 through optical fibers 7 and 9 ending in respective cylindrical lenses 10 and 12 projected on instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16); detecting the light diffusely reflected by the surface of the object using one or more detectors (Figs. 1-7, optical fibers 7 or 9 recording instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1 with photodiode 16 for detection of diffusively reflected light; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16); for each of the one or more detectors, determining, by a processor, a change in position of the reflected light detected by the detector over time, where the processor is interfaced with each of the one or more detectors (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 which is appropriately programmed to carry out Fourier transformation of digital signal obtained by transformation of current signal recorded by photodiode 16 recording instantaneous position of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20); for the at least one point on the surface of the object, calculating, by a processor, a series of measurements of vertical displacement of the surface over a period of time from the change in position of the reflected light and using triangulation (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 using optical triangulation system for signal recorded by photodiode 16 recording instantaneous positions of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 1, lines 51-65, Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20); and determining frequency of a disturbance of the surface at the at least one point on the surface and an amplitude of the disturbance using the series of measurements of vertical displacement (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 determining amplitude and frequency of vibration from instantaneous positions of end 1B of sheet 1; Col. 4, line 50– Col. 5, line 16, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20).
Regarding Claim 16, Conforti discloses vertical displacement is calculated according to dz=[(i⋆s)/d′]-z where d′ is distance between where the reflected light is incident on the detector and a reference point on the detector, i is distance between the detector and receiving lens associate therewith, z is length of an altitude of a triangle when the object is not subject to external forces, s1 is a segment of a base of the triangle between the detector and intersection of the altitude, and Θ is angle between the projection axis and a base plane, wherein a line between the light source and the detector lies in the base plane, the base plane is parallel to the surface of the object, and the triangle is formed by the light source, the detector and the point of interest (Col. 4, line 20 – Col. 8, line 28).
Regarding Claim 19, Conforti discloses displaying the surface of the object on a display device and superimposing metrics describing the disturbance of the surface onto the display device (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 with display 56, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20).
Regarding Claim 20, Conforti discloses animating the disturbance of the surface on the display device (Figs. 1-7, processor 54 with display 56, Col. 11, line 54 – Col. 12, line 20).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conforti in view of US 20040004106 to Franklin.
Regarding Claim 2, assuming arguendo that Conforti insufficiently discloses displacement is calculated according to Dz = [(I⋆s1) - zd′] / [(d′ + i⋆Contagent (⊖)))], Franklin discloses displacement is calculated according to optical triangulation using the same units (Figs. 2-3, “the angle at which light is reflected off the surface of rotating ultrasonic horn 10, designated as dotted lines 25, 26, 35, 36 shifts, thereby shifting the position on detector 14, 34 to point 23a, 43a at which the light spots generated by lenses 13, 33 strike detectors 14, 34”; ¶¶ [0033]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Conforti by providing displacement is calculated according to Dz = [(I⋆s1) - zd′] / [(d′ + i⋆Contagent (⊖)))], as in Franklin in order to provide for position detection using a planar detector as a well-known alternative to a photodiode. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 16, assuming arguendo that Conforti insufficiently discloses displacement is calculated according to dz=[(i⋆s)/d′]-z, Franklin discloses displacement is calculated according to optical triangulation using the same units (Figs. 2-3, “the angle at which light is reflected off the surface of rotating ultrasonic horn 10, designated as dotted lines 25, 26, 35, 36 shifts, thereby shifting the position on detector 14, 34 to point 23a, 43a at which the light spots generated by lenses 13, 33 strike detectors 14, 34”; ¶¶ [0033]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Conforti by providing displacement is calculated according to dz=[(i⋆s)/d′]-z as in Franklin in order to provide for position detection using a planar detector as a well-known alternative to a photodiode. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conforti in view of US 20180266876 to Carmon.
Regarding Claim 5, Conforti discloses the non-contact method of claim 1 but is silent regarding the light source is further defined as a laser and the detector is further defined as a charge-coupled device. Carmon discloses the light source is further defined as a laser and the detector is further defined as a charge-coupled device (Fig. 1, laser 12 and photodiode array (e.g. CCD) 22; ¶¶ [0055], [0062]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Conforti by providing the light source is further defined as a laser and the detector is further defined as a charge-coupled device as in Carmon in order to provide for position detection using a planar detector as a well-known alternative to a photodiode. See, e.g., "substitution of art-recognized equivalents" as discussed in MPEP 2144.06II "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982)."
Regarding Claim 6, Conforti discloses the non-contact method of claim 1 but is silent regarding the one or more detectors detect light reflected by the surface at more than 40,000 frames per second. Carmon discloses the one or more detectors detect light reflected by the surface at more than 40,000 frames per second (Fig. 1, laser 12 and photodiode array (e.g. CCD) 22 operating in the tens of KHz range; ¶ [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the application to modify the invention of Conforti by providing the one or more detectors detect light reflected by the surface at more than 40,000 frames per second as in Carmon in order to provide greater accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BOLDUC whose telephone number is (571)270-1602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay, Jr. can be reached at (571) 272-1672. 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.
/DAVID J BOLDUC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights