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 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:
* interference image generator in claims 1-8 and 14-15;
* offset positioner in claim 7
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 § 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.
Claims 7, 14, and 15 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claims are drawn to the structure of an apparatus and the only structure found in the claims is that of the apparatus of claim 1. No other structure is found. Although the preambles are different, the different preamble only appear to describe the intended use of the structure defined by claim 1. If there is a structural difference between claim 1 and claim 14, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the structural difference is. For examination purposes, claims 14 and 15 will be interpreted as merely stating the intended use or application of the apparatus claim 1, with no structural difference.
Claim limitation “offset positioner” of claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The term "offset positioner" is not found in the disclosure and a search does not reveal that it is a term having achieved recognition in the art to be the name for structure or a class of structure. Based on the claimed function, it appears the term is equivalent to the claimed "offset position variable unit". The specification also does not disclose what this is, nothing in the drawings provide information, and nothing in the prior art is found showing what it is. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to speculate as to what is and what is not the corresponding structure is that is encompassed by the claim term "offset positioner". Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alford et al (US 2019/0313912).
Alford shows a non-invasive optical detection system (e.g. Figs. 9A-9D) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
368
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1. A displacement measurement apparatus comprising:
a light emitter to emit coherent light to an object (light source 50);
a light position detector (detector array 28) to detect an instantaneous intensity variation of an interference image of the object; and
an interference image generator (light combiner 58) disposed between the object and the light position detector along an optical path of reflection light reflected from the object,
the interference image generator to:
form the interference image (speckle light pattern, light interference pattern 48) with the reflection light reflected from the object; and
magnify a point spread function of an optical system to magnify a size of a speckle particle of the interference image (Para. [0107]: "the diffusive optical detection system 10 may include magnification optics and/or apertures to magnify the individual speckle grains, which may have a size on the order of the wavelength of the near-infrared or visible light used to acquire the detected data measurements, and hence on the order of hundreds of nanometers in size, to approximately the sizes of the pixels 68 of the detector array(s) 28. Thus, in the illustrated embodiment, the pixel sizes and pitches of the detector array(s) 28 are matched to the speckle grain sizes and pitches of the respective speckle light pattern(s) 48 via the appropriate magnification, although other embodiments are possible").
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zalevsky et al (US 2010/0177164).
Zalevsky shows a system for object reconstruction as follows:
Claim 1. A displacement measurement apparatus (Figs. 6A, 6B, 7) comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
244
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a light emitter to emit coherent light to an object ("coherent light source 12A," Figs. 6A, 6B, 7);
a light position detector (Para. [0056]: "a light detector 14A (a pixel matrix, e.g., CCD", Fig. 1) to detect an instantaneous intensity variation of an interference image of the object; and
an interference image generator (lens 14B, Fig. 1) disposed between the object and the light position detector along an optical path of reflection light reflected from the object,
the interference image generator to:
form the interference image ("speckle pattern") with the reflection light reflected from the object; and
magnify a point spread function of an optical system to magnify a size of a speckle particle of the interference image (Para. [0099]:"a change of the speckle size on the imaging unit (camera) with changes of L and d should be considered.").
Claim 9. A displacement measurement apparatus (Figs. 6A, 6B, 7) comprising:
a light emitter to emit coherent light to an object ("coherent light source 12A," Figs. 6A, 6B, 7);
a light position detector (Para. [0056]: "a light detector 14A (a pixel matrix, e.g., CCD") to detect an instantaneous intensity variation of an interference image of the object; and
a spatial distributor disposed (Para. [0127]: "Adjustor 25", Figs. 6A, 6B, 7) between the light emitter (laser 12A) and the object (object 12) along an optical path of the coherent light, the spatial distributor to provide a spatial distribution to the coherent light, the spatial distributor including
a spatial amplitude filter (Para. [0127]:"an adjustor 25 implementing reduction …relative brightness" Also, diffuser 12B and lens 12C, 12E each functions as an aperture) and
a spatial phase filter (Para. [0127]:"The diffractive optical element 12D used in this setup is a phase only element "),
wherein the spatial distributor magnifies a point spread function of an optical system to magnify a size of a speckle particle of the interference image (Para. [0121]: "Adjustor 25 constitutes a mechanism of increasing the mappable range.").
Claim 11. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 9, wherein:
the spatial distributor includes an amplitude modification filter that partially transmits the reflection light (Para. [0127]:"an adjustor 25 implementing reduction …relative brightness" Also, diffuser 12B and lens 12C, 12E each functions as an aperture).
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) 1-8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (Event-based laser speckle correlation for micro motion estimation. Optics Letters Vol. 46, No. 16; submitted in IDS of 05/16/2024) in view of Alford et al.
Zhou shows Event-based laser speckle correlation for micro:
Claim 1. A displacement measurement apparatus (e.g. Fig. 3) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
352
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a light emitter to emit coherent light to an object (Fig. 3: "laser source");
a light position detector ("event sensor") to detect an instantaneous intensity variation of an interference image of the object; and
an interference image generator ("lens") disposed between the object and the light position detector along an optical path of reflection light reflected from the object,
the interference image generator to:
form the interference image ("speckle pattern") with the reflection light reflected from the object; and
Although Zhou shows a 40X lens at the event sensor (p. 3886, 2nd column) which would magnify the size of the speckles being image, Zhou does not explicitly state that this is so.
Alford shows a non-invasive optical detection system (e.g. Figs. 9A-9D) where a point spread function of an optical system is magnified in order to magnify a size of a speckle particle of the interference image (Para. [0107]: "the diffusive optical detection system 10 may include magnification optics and/or apertures to magnify the individual speckle grains…so that the pixel sizes and pitches of the detector array(s) 28 are matched to the speckle grain sizes and pitches of the respective speckle light pattern(s) 48").
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to magnify the size of the speckles to match the size of the pixel size of the detector array in order to monitor each speckle of the speckle pattern and thus improving the accuracy of measuring the speckle pattern.
Claim 2. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image generator includes:
an imaging optical element (p. 3886, 2nd column, beam expander); and
an amplitude modification filter (Alford's lens has a limiting aperture; Para. [0107]: "the diffusive optical detection system 10 may include magnification optics and/or apertures to…") that partially transmits the reflection light.
Claim 3. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the interference image generator limits a spatial distribution of an amplitude or a phase of the reflection light (Alford's lens has an aperture and thus limits spatial distribution of an amplitude. Also, para. [0107]: "the diffusive optical detection system 10 may include… apertures to…").
Claim 4. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
the amplitude modification filter is an aperture (see claim 2 above).
Claim 5. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the interference image generator includes an imaging optical element configured to form an image of the reflection light on a focus position, and the imaging optical element is offset from the focus position toward the light position detector or the object (As discussed above for claim 1, Alford shows the magnification optics, and it would be implicit to one of ordinary skill in the art that the magnification optics is a variable, and if not it would be obvious. Official notice is taken that variable magnification optics were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a variable magnification optic in order to be able to have a versatile system and choose a variety of magnifications. As such, during use and adjustment, the variable optic would be offset as certain points in time).
Claim 6. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the interference image generator includes an imaging optical element (Zhou shows a 10X beam expander) to form an image of the reflection light on a predetermined position, and
the light position detector is offset from the predetermined position toward or away from the imaging optical element (see discussion of the magnification optics in claim 5 and the discussed certain points in time, the detector would be offset.)
Claim 7. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising: an offset positioner to offset the imaging optical element or the light position detector (As interpreted by the examiner, an offset positioner is anything that moves a lens. The variable magnification system discussed above for claim 5 has a lens translator that moves the magnification lens to adjust the magnification in an offset direction).
Claim 8. The displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1, the light position detector is an event-based vision sensor (Abstract: "event-based sensor").
Claim 14. A non-contact input apparatus comprising: the displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (See Zhou Abstract; In addition the claim is not found to recite any structural difference than claim 1).
Claim 15. A biological micromotion measurement apparatus comprising: the displacement measurement apparatus according to any one of claims 1 to 13 claim 1 (See Zhou Abstract; In addition the claim is not found to recite any structural difference than claim 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Lading et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,323,949).
Zalevsky shows all the elements as recited for claim 9 but does not show the spatial distributor includes a phase modification filter including a computer generated hologram.
Lading shows an optical measurement apparatus for differential speckle determination (Abstract) wherein the diffractive optical elements is a computer-generated hologram.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a computer generated hologram as the diffractive element of Zalevsky for the predictable result of diffracting the light at the desired angles and efficiency (column 8, lines 14-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to show or suggest the displacement measurement apparatus according to claim 11, wherein:
a transmittance of the amplitude modification filter exponentially changes from a center of an optical axis of the spatial distributor
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dang et al. (WO 2019/017841) shows a speckle imaging apparatus where the cross-correlation coefficients between the PSF at the center and PSFs at different positions may be calculated to confirm the available central FOV according to the magnification between the object 454 and the image plane (at the camera 462).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacolleti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877