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 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen, T. et al., US 10837770 B2 (hereinafter Jensen) and in view of US 4105333 A (hereinafter Kaule).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen teaches a method for three-dimensional measuring of objects with triangulation, the method comprising: projecting light structures onto an object to be measured (this is shown in figs. 1 and 2, projecting light structures is element 11 and object is object 2, col 8 para 3); recording the light structures with an optoelectronic image recording (figs. 1 and 2 element 17, col 8 lines 62-65); performing a computer-assisted evaluation of recorded images to measure the object (col 7 para 5), wherein the light structures are projected in a first wavelength range and the optoelectronic image recording captures a wavelength range (col 8 lines 20-21 which includes intensities caused by fluorescence of the object (col 8 lines 46-53); filtering wavelengths emanating from the object when recording the light structures (figs. 1 and 2 filter 16, col 8 lines 46-53), wherein both the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures and the wavelength range including the fluorescence are captured for a same image recording (col 8 lines 20-21); and “wherein a transmission in the fluorescence wavelength range which includes the fluorescence is larger than the transmission in the projection wavelength range used for projecting the light structures” (col 8 lines 50-53).
Jensen fails to teach matching an amount of light in a projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering to an amount of light at-in a fluorescence wavelength range to equalize image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges, and wherein the matching of the amount of light in the projection wavelength range to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range damps reflections of the projected light structures to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording.
Kaule, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches “matching an amount of light in a projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering to an amount of light at-in a fluorescence wavelength range to equalize image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges” (fig. 3 elements 14, 15, col 3 last para to col 4 para 1) and “wherein the matching of the amount of light in the projection wavelength range to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range damps reflections of the projected light structures to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording” (fig. 3 elements 14, 15, col 3 last para to col 4 para 1; filters 3 and 4 damp the light from the light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kaule (replacing filter 16 of Jensen with filters 3 or 4 of Kaule) to Jensen to have matching an amount of light in a projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering to an amount of light at-in a fluorescence wavelength range to equalize image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges, and wherein the matching of the amount of light in the projection wavelength range to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range damps reflections of the projected light structures to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording in order to distinguish between several fluorescent materials which may be present in the sample (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the projecting is implemented in an ultraviolet wavelength range of 100 to 400 nm (Jansen: col 4 lines 59-63).
Claim(s) 2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Dreyfus, M. et al., US4226536A (hereinafter Dreyfus).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein autofluorescent components with an autofluorescent surface are measured as objects (Jensen: col 8 lines 28-32), and wherein the autofluorescent components include components made of plastics material (Jensen: col 8 lines 28-32).
However, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach an electronic or electromechanical components.
Dreyfus, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches an electronic or electromechanical components (Dreyfus: the rotor blades are electromechanical components; Abstract lines 1-8; note that a rotor can be made of fluorescent plastic, see evidentiary reference TW 378257 B, p. 6 last para line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dreyfus to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have an electronic or electromechanical components in order to measure the contours of the objects at high speed and high accuracy (Dreyfus: Abstract lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach wherein the object is at least one of a rotor winding and a stator winding of an electrical machine.
Dreyfus, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the object is at least one of a rotor winding and a stator winding of an electrical machine (Dreyfus: the rotor blades are electromechanical components; Abstract lines 1-8; note that a rotor can be made of fluorescent plastic, see evidentiary reference TW 378257 B, p. 6 last para line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dreyfus to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have wherein the object is at least one of a rotor and stator windings of an electrical machine in order to measure the contours of the objects at high speed and high accuracy (Dreyfus: Abstract lines 1-8).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen, Kaule, and Dreyfus as applied to claim(s) 2 above, and further in view of Dirk, W. et al., DE102019216245B3 (hereinafter Dirk).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen, when modified by Kaule and Dreyfus, fails to teach wherein electronic or electromechanical components are coated with an insulation lacquer, and wherein the insulation lacquer is used as the autofluorescent surface.
Dirk, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches “wherein electronic or electromechanical components are coated with an insulation lacquer, and wherein the insulation lacquer is used as the autofluorescent surface” (Dirk: the electronic component is the wire; p. 3 para 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Dirk to Jensen, when modified by Kaule and Dreyfus, to have “wherein electronic or electromechanical components are coated with an insulation lacquer, and wherein the insulation lacquer is used as the autofluorescent surface” in order to detect whether the stripped wire ends are free from paint residue (Dirk: p. 3 para 7).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Wendel, A. et al., CN 110678374 B (hereinafter Wendel).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach wherein a portion of 0.1 to 10% of the wavelength range used for projection is passed.
Wendel, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches “wherein a portion of 0.1 to 10% of the wavelength range used for projection is passed” (Wendel: fig. 3B element 358, only 1% transmittance; p. 8 para 5 lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wendel to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have “wherein a portion of 0.1 to 10% of the wavelength range used for projection is passed” in order to effectively increase the exposure time of the camera (Wendel: p. 8 para 5 lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama, T. US 20150362135 A1 (hereinafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen does not teach wherein a fluorescence wavelength above 500 nm is passed. Regarding claim 9, Jensen does not teach wherein the projecting is implemented in a visible wavelength range above 400 nm.
Sugiyama, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches wherein a fluorescence wavelength above 500 nm is passed (Sugiyama: this is shown in fig. 4b) and wherein the projecting is implemented in a visible wavelength range above 400 nm (Sugiyama: this is shown in fig. 4B, at 445 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sugiyama (replacing filter 16 of Jensen with the filter 40 of Sugiyama) to Jensen to have wherein a fluorescence wavelength above 500 nm is passed and wherein the projecting is implemented in a visible wavelength range above 400 nm in order to obtain the same intensity of chromaticity in the signals, thus, increasing the accuracy of the image of the object.
Regarding claim 12, Jensen does not teach wherein the filtering is performed with a dielectric filter, an absorbing filter, or a combination of the dielectric and the absorbing filters.
Sugiyama, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filtering is performed with a dielectric filter (Sugiyama: para [0053] lines 5-16; SiO2 and Nb2O5 are dielectric materials), an absorbing filter, or a combination of the dielectric and the absorbing filters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sugiyama to Jensen to have teach the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filtering is performed with a dielectric filter, an absorbing filter, or a combination of the dielectric and the absorbing filters in order to transmit a portion of whose intensity is equal to the light source and transmit fluorescent light from the materials (Sugiyama: para [0053] lines 5-16).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kurt, R., DE 102020201884 A1 (hereinafter Kurt).
Regarding claim 10, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, teaches the method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the projecting is implemented with at least one of blue light in the wavelength range of 420 to 490 nm (Jensen: col 8 lines 20-21)
Jensen, when modified by Kaule, fails to teach a green light in the wavelength range of 490 to 575 nm.
Kurt, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches a green light in the wavelength range of 490 to 575 nm (Kurt: p. 6 last para lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kurt to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have a green light in the wavelength range of 490 to 575 nm in order to improve the method for identifying an orientation of the application on the work surface (p. 2 para 1 last sentence).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Clarke, R., WO 9207249 A1 (hereinafter Clarke).
Regarding claim 13, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach wherein the filtering is performed with an antireflection coated filter.
Clarke, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches wherein the filtering is performed with an antireflection coated filter (Clark: p. 4 para 4 lines 9-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Clarke to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have wherein the filtering is performed with an antireflection coated filter in order to improve the efficiency of the sensor (Clark: p. 4 para 4 lines 9-17).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Xin, H. et al., US9417132B2 (hereinafter Xin).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen, when modified by Sugiyama, does not teach wherein the filtering is performed by bandpass filtering or long-pass filtering.
Xin, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches wherein the filtering is performed by bandpass filtering (Xin: col 5 lines 26-29) or long-pass filtering.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Xin to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have wherein the filtering is performed by bandpass filtering or long-pass filtering in order to obtain a highly accurate color measurement and evaluation (Xin: Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Ma, H. et al., WO 2018102147 A1 (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 15, Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach further comprising: applying at least one fluorescing calibration marker to the object; and calibrating a measuring system, locating the object, and/or orienting the measuring system and the object relative to one another with the at least one fluorescing calibration marker.
Ma, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches further comprising: applying at least one fluorescing calibration marker to the object (Ma: fig. 2 element 10, p. 6 para 4); and “calibrating a measuring system, locating the object, and/or orienting the measuring system and the object relative to one another with the at least one fluorescing calibration marker” (Ma: p. 6 para 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ma to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have further comprising: applying at least one fluorescing calibration marker to the object; and calibrating a measuring system, locating the object, and/or orienting the measuring system and the object relative to one another with the at least one fluorescing calibration marker in order to estimate the drift and correction phase of the sample (Ma: p. 6 para 4).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen and Kaule as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Wolff, A., WO 2012001133 A2 (hereinafter Wolff).
Regarding claim 16, Jensen teaches the measuring system comprising: a projection unit configured to project the light structures onto the object to be measured (Jensen: this is shown in figs. 1 and 2, projecting light structures is element 11 and object is object 2, col 8 para 3); an optoelectronic image recording unit configured to record the projected light structures (Jensen: figs. 1 and 2 element 17, col 8 lines 62-65); an evaluation unit configured to perform a computer-assisted evaluation of recorded images to measure the object (Jensen: col 7 para 5); and a filter configured to filter wavelengths emanating from the object when recording the projected light structures (Jensen: figs. 1 and 2 filter 16, col 8 lines 46-53), such that both the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures and the wavelength range including the fluorescence are captured for a same image recording (Jensen: this is shown in figs 1-2) and wherein the measuring system is configured to project the light structures in the first wavelength range and to capture the wavelength range including intensities caused by fluorescence of the object during image recording (Jensen: col 8 lines 44-53), and wherein the transmission in the fluorescence wavelength range including the fluorescence is larger than the transmission in the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures (col 8 lines 50-53), and
Jensen does not teach a measuring system for three-dimensional measuring of objects with a method as claimed in claim 1, an amount of light in the projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range to equalize the image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges, wherein when the amount of light in the projection wavelength range is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range reflections of the projected light structures are damped to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording.
Kaule, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches “an amount of light in the projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range to equalize the image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges” (fig. 3 elements 14, 15, col 3 last para to col 4 para 1) and “wherein when the amount of light in the projection wavelength range is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range reflections of the projected light structures are damped to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording” (fig. 3 elements 14, 15, col 3 last para to col 4 para 1; filters 3 and 4 damp the light from the light source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kaule (replacing filter 16 of Jensen with filters 3 or 4 of Kaule) to Jensen to have an amount of light in the projection wavelength range passed by damping the projection wavelength range during the filtering is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range to equalize the image brightnesses of effects caused by the projection and fluorescence wavelength ranges, and wherein when the amount of light in the projection wavelength range is matched to the amount of light in the fluorescence wavelength range reflections of the projected light structures are damped to reduce disturbances in the same image recording such that neither of the projection wavelength range and the fluorescence wavelength range overdetermines an image brightness of the optoelectronic image recording in order to distinguish between several fluorescent materials which may be present in the sample (Abstract last sentence).
Jensen, when modified by Kaule, does not teach a measuring system for three-dimensional measuring of objects with a method as claimed in claim 1.
Wolff, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches a measuring system for three-dimensional measuring of objects with a method as claimed in claim 1 (Wolff: p. 9 para 2 lines 11-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wolff to Jensen, when modified by Kaule, to have a measuring system for three-dimensional measuring of objects with a method as claimed in claim 1 in order to examine the samples simultaneously (Wolff: p. 3 last para lines 7-8).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen, Kaule, and Wolff as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 17, Jensen, when modified by Wolff, does not teach wherein the filter is at least one of dielectric, absorbing, and antireflection coated.
Sugiyama, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the filter is at least one of dielectric (Sugiyama: para [0053] lines 5-16; SiO2 and Nb2O5 are dielectric materials), absorbing, and antireflection coated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sugiyama to Jensen, when modified by Wolff, to have wherein the filter is at least one of dielectric, absorbing, and antireflection coated in order to transmit a portion of whose intensity is equal to the light source and transmit fluorescent light from the materials (Sugiyama: para [0053] lines 5-16).
Regarding claim 18, Jensen, when modified by Sugiyama and Wolff, teaches the measuring system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the filter is integrated in the measuring system in an exchangeable fashion (Jensen: col 10 lines 20-26).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen, Kaule, and Wolff as applied to claim(s) 16 above, and further in view of Geurts, R., US 20050151959 A1 (hereinafter Geurts).
Regarding claim 19, Jensen, when modified by Sugiyama and Wolff, does not teach wherein the measuring system has a measuring cell with a light-transmissive pane configured to damp ambient light in the wavelength range including at least one of the fluorescence and the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures.
Geurts, from the same field of endeavor as Jensen, teaches wherein the measuring system has a measuring cell with a light-transmissive pane configured to damp ambient light in the wavelength range including at least one of the fluorescence and the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures (Geurts: para [0020] lines 9-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Geurts to Jensen, when modified by Sugiyama and Wolff, to have wherein the measuring system has a measuring cell with a light-transmissive pane configured to damp ambient light in the wavelength range including at least one of the fluorescence and the wavelength range used for projecting the light structures in order to prevent ambient light from entering the interior of emission chamber (Geurts: para [0020] lines 9-18).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights