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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 6-10, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9-10 and 12-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim(s) 2-8 and 11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) and Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1).
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: “a patterning member” in claims 1, 3-5 and 8; “a refracting member” in claims 1-4 and 13.
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 § 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) 1-2, 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feldkhun discloses a single pattern shift projection optical system for a 3D scanner, comprising:
a plurality of light sources (107) configured to emit light in different constant wavelength bands, respectively (Fig. 1; [0038]; [0039], lines 1-9; [0045]);
a patterning member (110) configured to transmit a portion of the light generated by each of the plurality of light sources as patterned light (Fig. 1; [0038]; [0039], lines 1-15; [0070], last 15 lines); and
a refracting member (109) disposed on a path of light passing through the patterning member and configured to refract and transmit light to the patterning member (Fig. 1; [0038]; [0041], lines 1-16; [0141]; [0085], lines 27-47); and
a controller (115) configured to control turning-on of the plurality of light sources ([0038]),
wherein the controller sequentially turns on and off the plurality of light sources such that a number of mutually shifted pattern images equal to a number of the plurality of light sources are sequentially projected onto an object (Fig. 1; [0038]; [0039], lines 18-22 – “Each sequential pattern … using the controller 115 as illustrated in the timing plots 116”).
Feldkhun does not explicitly disclose that the refracting member is configured to refract and transmit the patterned light such that patterns formed by the light passing through the patterning member are shifted relative to each other.
However, Wiersma, in the field of endeavor of illumination systems used to generate patterned illumination light, discloses a system which uses a refracting member (18) disposed on a path of light passing through a patterning member (14 via pattern generator 16) and configured to refract and transmit patterned light such that patterns formed by the light passing through the patterning member are shifted relative to each other (Fig. 1A; 10B; [0031]; [0035]; [0038]; [0039], lines 1-4 and last 6 lines; [0040]; [0042]; [0049] – where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a light distributer, interpreted as the refracting member, which refracts beamlets to shape a resultant patterned light, can be used in a way which shifts the illumination light relative to an object or imaging plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feldkhun with an illumination system that uses a refracting member disposed after the patterning member, providing an alternative means for changing the shape and/or shifting the direction of patterned illumination beams, where the motivation would be to tailor the incident light effectively onto a particular measurement object or image plane, minimizing optical losses and improving image quality (Wiersma: [0055], last 8 lines; [0084], last 3 lines)
Regarding claim 2, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the refracting member (109) is a prism (Feldkhun: Fig. 1; [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein a patterning member (110) comprises a plurality of slits arranged parallel to each other at regular intervals (Feldkhun: Fig. 1; [0038]; [0039], lines 1-15 – “the modulating structures … may be continuous or may contain discrete features and may include diffractive optical elements such as gratings …” ; [0070], last 15 lines – where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that diffraction gratings capable of producing alternating pattern of light shown in Fig. 1 would imply a plurality of slits arranged parallel to each other at regular intervals).
Regarding claim 12, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of light sources is an LED lamp (Feldkhun: [0031], last 6 lines).
Regarding claim 13, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 6, as outlined above, and further discloses an image sensor (112) configured to capture an image of an object onto which the patterned light that has passed through the refracting member is projected (Feldkhun: Fig. 1; [0038]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1) further in view of Dang et al. (US 2023/0003523 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, comprising a refracting member (109) (Feldkhun: Fig. 1; [0041], lines 1-16) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the refracting member is a flat plate of transparent material disposed to be tilted with respect to the path of light passing through the patterning member.
However, Dang, in the field of endeavor of projecting optical systems, discloses wherein a refracting member (72) is a flat plate of transparent material disposed to be tilted with respect to a path of light passing through an optical unit (62) (Fig. 3; [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Feldkhun’s refracting member for Dan’s flat plate where both optical elements are equivalents known for the same purpose of refraction/dispersion.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1) further in view of Tsao et al. (US 2009/0080048 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, comprising a refracting member (109) (Feldkhun: Fig. 1; [0041], lines 1-16) does not explicitly disclose wherein the refracting member is made of a transparent material and has a tilted surface disposed to be tilted with respect to the path of light passing through the patterning member.
However, Tsao, discloses wherein a refracting member (401) is made of a transparent material and has a tilted surface disposed to be tilted with respect to a path of light passing through a patterning member (305) (Fig. 4a-b; Abstract, lines 1-11; [0063], lines 1-15; [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a prism as a refracting optical element providing a simple, cost-effective and passive means for separating incident light by wavelength.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1) further in view of Fuchikami et al. (US 2016/0088275 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose an incident path member configured to adjust the path of light so that the light generated by each of the plurality of light sources is incident on the patterning member in a same direction.
However, Fuchikami, in the field of endeavor of projecting optical systems, discloses an incident path member (141) configured to adjust a path of light so that a light generated by each of a plurality of light sources (131, 132) is incident on a patterning member (121) in a same direction (Fig. 1; [0065]; [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a dichroic mirror as the incident path member for adjusting the path of a plurality of light beams differing in wavelength, where dichroic mirrors are known simple optical element which allow for the selective reflection or transmission of particular wavelength bands. The modification would provide flexibility in configuring and designing the imaging apparatus.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1) further in view of Dillon et al. (US 2012/0062716 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources comprise two light sources comprising a light source emitting red light and a light source emitting blue light.
However, Dillon, in the same field of endeavor of 3D imaging using projecting optical systems, discloses a measurement system wherein the plurality of light sources comprise two light sources comprising a light source emitting red light and a light source emitting blue light ([0031], last 6 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feldkhun in view of Wiersma with a light source capable of producing a plurality of wavelength bands, including any combination of conventional red, green and blue wavelength bands, where the motivation would be to increase the number of projected colored patterns and potential combinations that could be used in the imaging process, improving the overall functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources comprise three light sources comprising a light source emitting red light, a light source emitting green light, and a light source emitting blue light.
However, Dillon discloses wherein the plurality of light sources comprise three light sources comprising a light source emitting red light, a light source emitting green light, and a light source emitting blue light ([0031], last 6 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feldkhun in view of Wiersma with a light source capable of producing a plurality of wavelength bands, including any combination of conventional red, green and blue wavelength bands, where the motivation would be to increase the number of projected colored patterns and potential combinations that could be used in the imaging process, improving the overall functionality of the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldkhun et al. (US 2010/0008588 A1) in view of Wiersma et al. (US 2020/0150450 A1) further in view of in view of Kyomoto et al. (KR 2007006360 A).
Regarding claim 11, Feldkhun in view of Wiersma discloses the single pattern shift projection optical system according to claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of light sources comprise four light sources comprising a light source emitting red light, a light source emitting green light, a light source emitting blue light, and a light source emitting yellow light.
However, Kyomoto, in the field of endeavor of projecting optical systems, discloses wherein a plurality of light sources (71) comprise four light sources comprising a light source emitting red light, a light source emitting green light, a light source emitting blue light, and a light source emitting yellow light (Fig. 7; Pg. 19, lines 16-23; Pg. 21, lines 3-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Feldkhun in view of Wiersma with a light source capable of producing a plurality of wavelength bands beyond red, green and blue, where the motivation would be to increase the number of projected colored patterns and potential combinations that could be used in the imaging process, improving the overall functionality of the system.
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 MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Michelle Iacoletti 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights