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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application EP23194139.4 filed 8/30/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant’s request to have the office electronically retrieve the foreign priority document failed and a notification of this failure was provided 1/30/2025. The applicant should contact EBC customer support at 1-866-217-9197 as indicated on said notification.
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 3 and 7 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 claim 3, the applicant claims that the metaelement has a “different optical effect over the light reception elements.” This language is unclear because the applicant has not provided any language to distinguish “optical effect” with respect to the two optical elements. The two optical elements in the applicant’s disclosure are entirely different devices from one another and therefore have two completely different effects. The applicant’s language appears to suggest that a metaelement and light reception element could have identical optical effects, but this is not the case anywhere in the applicant’s specification or based on any interpretation of said elements within the prior art.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim based on the definitions of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, applicant claims “the function of a microlens field” which is unclear. The applicant has not defined the particular function that is being compared with respect to the microlens field.
For the purposes of this action the office will interpret the claim such that the metaelement directs light, which is a function of a microlens field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 7-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (PGPUB 20240288307) in view of Menzel et al. (PGPUB 20230067699).
Regarding claim 1, Levy discloses a camera for recording 3D image data using a light sectioning process that has an illumination unit to project a light pattern in a focal plane (Abst. and 300 onto 310), an image sensor having a plurality of light reception elements in an image plane (350), a reception optics arranged upstream of the image sensor and having an objective plane (320, 330 and 340), and a control and evaluation unit that is configured to generate the 3D image data by evaluating the light pattern in a recording of the image sensor (1302 and [0205]), wherein the image plane is tilted with respect to the focal plane (Fig. 3 indicates the variable shaped structure of the sing/multi-layered sample), and wherein the reception optics has at least one metaelement (320).
Levy shows that light is reflected from the sample at various angles but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metaelement compensates an oblique light incidence on the light reception elements.
However, Menzel teaches an imaging process that includes a metaelement wherein the metaelement compensates for oblique light incidence ([0024]-[0026], [0049]-[0053] and Figs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Levy and Menzel such that the metaelement corrected oblique light motivated by improving off-axis image quality.
Regarding claim 2, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement generates a prismatic effect ([0025] of Menzel).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement has a different optical effect over the light reception elements (see 112 rejection above and [0034] of Levy).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement additionally has the function of a microlens field (Fig. 3 of Levy).
Regarding claim 8, modified Levy discloses wherein the reception optics has a reception lens (320).
Regarding claim 10, modified Levy discloses wherein the image sensor and the reception lens are arranged with respect to one another such that the image plane and the objective plane are in parallel (Fig. 3 of Levy).
Regarding claim 11, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement is configured to bundle light from the focal plane on the image sensor (Fig. 3 of Levy and Figs. 2-5 of Menzel).
Regarding claim 12, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement is an active metaelement that is adaptable in its optical properties ([0165] of Levy and [0049] of Menzel).
Regarding claim 13, modified Levy disclose wherein the reception optics has a spaceplate ([0018] of Menzel).
Regarding claim 14, modified Levy discloses wherein the metaelement is configured for a multifocal image recording ([0214] of Levy); and/or wherein the metaelement has anamorphic properties.
Regarding claim 15, Levy discloses a method of recording 3D image data in accordance with the principle of the light sectioning process, in which a light pattern is projected in a focal plane (Fig. 3 300 onto 310), an image sensor (350) having a plurality of light reception elements in an image plane records the light pattern ([0050]) by a reception optics arranged upstream of the image sensor (320-340) and having an objective plane (Fig. 3), and the recorded light pattern is evaluated to generate the 3D image data (Abst.), wherein the image plane is tilted with respect to the focal plane (Fig. 3 indicates the variable shaped structure of the sing/multi-layered sample), and wherein the reception optics has at least one metaelement (320).
Levy shows that light is reflected from the sample at various angles but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metaelement compensates an oblique light incidence on the light reception elements.
However, Menzel teaches an imaging process that includes a metaelement wherein the metaelement compensates for oblique light incidence ([0024]-[0026], [0049]-[0053] and Figs. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Levy and Menzel such that the metaelement corrected oblique light motivated by improving off-axis image quality.
Claims 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Menzel and further in view of Devlin et al. (PGPUB 20210028215).
Regarding claim 4, modified Levy does not disclose wherein the reception optics has a microlens array upstream of the image sensor.
However, Devlin teaches an imaging system that includes a metaelement (13a) wherein the reception optics (16a) includes a microlens array upstream of the image sensor ([0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Levy and Devlin such that a microlens array was placed in front of the reception optics included a microlens array motivated by improve optical function of the imaging system ([0099]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Levin discloses wherein the microlenses of the microlens array have an offset with respect to the light reception elements ([0099] of Devlin).
Regarding claim 6, modified Levin discloses wherein the metaelement provides a perpendicular light incidence in the respective microlens (Fig. 2 of Devlin).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights