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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been canceled.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. (2019/0323831 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Natori discloses a method for taking a measurement from a reflective object (WS) or a transparent object by means of a deflectometer a shape measuring device 100/500 (figs. 1-48) having:
- a display displaying dynamic fringes is a fringe projection [pars. 0014, 0142, 0238];
- a camera (120) configured to acquire the images from fringes reflected by the reflective object (WS) and/or the images from fringes transmitted through the transparent object;
- a computer a controller 200 configured to run a program in order to perform the measurement based on the images acquired by the camera [pars. 0008-9, 0028-29]; the method comprising the following steps: - successively acquiring the images (i.e. plurality of …. Images/light reception data) from fringes reflected and/or transmitted by the object (WS) in at least two (i.e. focal-position changing processing section) configurations of an optical system defined by the display the fringe projection, the object (WS) and the camera (120) [pars. 0009, 0026-27, 0097]; - based on the images acquired the plurality of …. Images/light reception data, computer running the program and calculating possible solutions for a shape of the object (WS) and for a position of the object (WS) within the optical system defined by the display the fringe projection, the object (WS) and the camera (120) [pars. 0153, 0155, 0170-171, 0195-196], in each of the configurations; - obtaining a final solution for the shape is obtaining the shape data and for the position of the object (WS) by identifying a single solution common (i.e. resolution measurement result) to the previously calculated possible solutions, the final solution being obtained solely from the images acquired by the camera (120),
wherein the camera 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) is displaced axially along an optical axis of the camera between successive acquisitions is wherein relatively moving the stage in an optical axis direction with respect to the light receiving section and adjusting a focal position of the light receiving section; and/or is wherein a function of relatively moving the stage in an optical axis direction with respect to the light receiving section and adjusting a focal position of the light receiving section and/or in the steps of and changing the focal position of the light receiving section 120 [pars. 0009, 0026-28, 0112, 0114, 0124-126].
Natori fails to explicitly specify that the final solution being obtained solely from the images acquired by the camera without any additional input data, because it is well settled that when the prior art device/structure is the same as a device/structure described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device/structure will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). (MPEP 2112.02). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977) to reasonable recognized that the camera will inherently/obviously perform the claimed process of providing the final solution based on final obtained data/image process solely from the images/data acquired by the camera without any additional input data at the camera being the acquisition device, in order to accurately process the images/data acquire from the fringes reflected by the reflective object and/or the images from fringes transmitted through the transparent object in order to accurately obtain or determine the shape of the object..
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognized that the camera will inherently/obviously perform the claimed process of providing the final solution based on final obtained data/image process solely from the images/data acquired by the camera without any additional input data at the camera as the acquisition device in order to accurately process the images/data acquire from the fringes reflected by the reflective object and/or the images from fringes transmitted through the transparent object in order to accurately obtain or determine the shape of the object, since it has been held that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For the purposes of clarity, alternatively, moving stage relative to camera optical axis along translational direction such as in X or Y direction is displacing axially along an optical axis of the camera optical axis and capturing successively acquisitions image(s) [par. 0104-105].
As to claims 2-4, Natori also discloses a method/system that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein said method further comprises a step of calibrating the deflectometer the shape measuring device 100/500 by successively acquiring the images that is the acquiring of the plurality of …. Images/light reception data from fringes included in the fringe projection in at least two configurations (i.e. included in focal-position changing processing section) of an optical system defined by the display positioned directly facing the camera the light receiving section 120, as can be seen depicted drawing (figs. 1-3) (claim 2);
wherein the calibration step comprises an additional step consisting of optical-axis-direction driving section 146C moving the display light projecting section 110 [par. 0107], and/or an optical-axis-direction driving section configured to relatively move 120 and/or 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) the camera , such that they are no longer aligned, and of placing a reference mirror so as to reflect the projections from the display in the direction of the camera (120) as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 6, 22) (claim 3); and wherein the measurement of the reference mirror (i.e. 124) is previously obtained is included first of the acquiring of the plurality of …. Images/light reception data by another means (such as an interferometer) and/or stereoscopic, and the calibration step comprises an additional step consisting of measuring the reference mirror by means of the deflectometer shape measuring device 100/500, in order to verify its correct operation, by comparing the measurement obtained by the deflectometer shape measuring device 100/500 with the previous measurement [pars. 0103, 0150 and 0342-343] (claim 4).
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natori et al. (2019/0323831 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Jordil et al. (2006/0130349 A1).
As to claim 5, Natori discloses a deflectometer a shape measuring device 100/500 (figs. 1-4) to take a measurement from a reflective object (WS) or a transparent object (WS) comprising:
- a display displaying dynamic fringes is a fringe projection [pars. 0014, 0142, 0238];
- a camera (120) configured to acquire the images of fringes reflected by the reflective object (WS) and/or the images of fringes transmitted through the transparent object (WS);
- a computer a controller 200 configured to run a program, in order to take the measurement based on the images acquired by the camera (120);
wherein the camera is implicitly mounted on a frame with the capacity of axial translation by an optical-axis-direction driving section configured to relatively move 120 and/or 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) along an optical axis of the camera between at least two positions, such that the camera (120) captures images according to at least two configurations of an optical system defined by the display the fringe projection, the object (WS) and the camera (120); and
wherein the measurement of the object (WS) is a calculation of its shape by shape measuring device and its position within the optical system defined by the display the fringe projection, the object (WS) and the camera (120), in each of the configurations resulted from focal-position-changing by changing camera location/positions along optical axis of the camera (axial translation i.e. along X or y direction position changings) and/or from capturing by moving the stage in an XY direction [pars. 0024-26], the computer controller 200 program is configured to calculate the geometry and the position of the object only based on the images acquired by the camera (120) in the at least two configurations, and the calculation is made by integration of the slopes measured in each configuration, and wherein the display and/or the camera are mounted on the frame [pars. 0009, 0026-28, 0112, 0114, 0124-126].
Natori teaches that the display and/or the camera/measuring head are mounted on a frame by some form/sort of connection with direction driving section and the projecting section and receiving section side may be movable [pars. 0107] in order to provide structure of the shape measuring device 100/500 that is mechanically accurately structure, and/or in a state of balance of system that is so that there are no net changes occurring/mechanical positioning accuracy [par. 0178].
Natori fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) of wherein the display and/or the camera are mounted on the frame by an isostatic connection, wherein the isostatic connection is of the Boys connection type.
Jordil [pars. 0028-29] teaches of mounting measuring head (i.e. display and/or the camera) on the frame by an isostatic connection, wherein the isostatic connection is of the Boys connection type is known in the art in order to provide accurate orientation in space. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Natori mounting structure as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, in view of the teachings of Jordil in order to provide shape measuring device/system that is mechanically accurately structure, and/or that is in a state of balance of system that is so that there are no net changes occurring and whose position is determined with great accuracy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Natori mounting structure as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, in view of the teachings of Jordil in order to provide shape measuring device/system that is mechanically accurately structure, and/or that is in a state of balance of system that is so that there are no net changes occurring and whose position is determined with great accuracy, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purposes of clarity, isostatic is considered as the situation in which the object are so balanced that the system as a whole remains in equilibrium and/or ensuring equilibrium considering the BRI.
In addition, moving stage relative to camera optical axis along translational direction such as in X or Y direction is displacing axially along an optical axis of the camera optical axis and capturing successively acquisitions image(s) [par. 0104-105].
As to claims 7 and 9, Natori when modified by Jordil, Natori also discloses a structure (figs. 1-4) that is use in a deflectometer/system that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the movement of the display the fringe projection and/or of an optical-axis-direction driving section configured to relatively move 120 and/or 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) the camera is ensured by a two-stage system comprising a first stage which can be moved with respect to the frame, and transporting a second stage on which the display and/or the camera is fixed; the second stage is retractable between: - a free position wherein it does not impede the movement of the first stage with respect to the frame, and - an indexed position wherein it impedes the movement of the first stage, and is in isostatic connection the situation in which the object are so balanced that the system as a whole remains in equilibrium and/or ensuring equilibrium with the frame [pars. 0103, 0150 and 0342-343](claim 7); and wherein the Boys connection the structure of the shape measuring device 100/500 is mechanically accurately structure, and/or in a state of balance of system is so that there are no net changes occurring is achieved by (i.e. three spherical portion pins positioned in a triangle at a lower face of the second stage opposite the frame, each intended to bear against two internal faces of a positioned opposite an upper face of the frame) (claim 9).
As to claims 10-12, Natori when modified by Jordil, Natori also discloses a structure (figs. 1-4) that is use in a deflectometer/system that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the display can be moved along a rectilinear axis (i.e. X and/or Y axis; the motion of a body in a straight line) as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-4) (claim 10); wherein the movement of the display light projecting section 110 [par. 0107] and/or of the camera (120) is ensured by: an optical-axis-direction driving section configured to relatively move 120 and/or 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) and/or XY stage 141, Z stage 142, 143 - a motorised horizontal slide connection ensuring the movement of the first stage with respect to the frame; - a motorised vertical slide connection making it possible to retract the second stage between the free position and the indexed position, and the vertical slide connection has a clearance (claim 11); and wherein the motors included in the optical-axis-direction driving section configured to relatively move 120 and/or 120 (see arrows displacement direction, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)) and/or XY stage 141, Z stage 142, 143 of the horizontal and vertical slide connections are connected to the computer (200), and the computer program is configured to automatically control the motors to move the display and/or the camera between the positions [pars. 0103, 0150 and 0342-344] (claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see pages 6-12, filed on 07/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art method/system for taking a measurement from a reflective object or a transparent object by means of a deflectometer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights