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 Objections
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 4, in line 4 of the claim, the phrase “a beam spitter configured to transmits” should be amended to read “a beam splitter configured to transmit”.
As for claim 9, in line 4 of the claim, the phrase “a beam spitter configured to transmits” should be amended to read “a beam splitter configured to transmit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘538 patent claim all the salient limitations of the instant claims as follows.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘538 patent claim an apparatus (see line 1 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent) comprising a structured-light source configured to sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); at least one lens configured to adjust optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-10 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); an image sensor configured to capture a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 11-14 claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); a memory that stores reference information on an inclination of the region (see claim 2 of the ‘538 patent); and a processor (see lines 15-17 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent) configured to acquire a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 18-19 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); and derive an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and the reference information (see lines 20-23 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 2 of the instant application with claim 1 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 5-10 of the ‘538 claim).
Claim 3 of the instant application with claim 4 of the ‘538 patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 3-15 of the ‘538 claim).
Claim 5 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 16-20 of the ‘538 claim).
Regarding claim 6, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘538 patent claim an apparatus (see line 1 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent) capable of performing the method of the instant claim, the method comprising sequentially radiating, by a structured-light source, a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); adjusting, by at least one lens, optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-10 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); capturing, by an image sensor, a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 11-14 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); acquiring, by a processor, a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 15-19 of claim 1 of the ‘538 patent); and deriving, by the processor, an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region stored in a memory (see lines 20-23 of claim 1 along with claim 2 of the ‘538 patent).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 1 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 5-10 of the ‘538 claim).
Claim 8 of the instant application with claim 4 of the ‘538 patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 3-15 of the ‘538 claim).
Claim 10 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘538 patent (see lines 16-20 of the ‘538 claim).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,360,031. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘031 patent claim the salient limitations of the claims of the instant application as follows.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘031 patent claims an apparatus (see line 1 of the ‘031 claim) comprising a structured-light source configured to sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘031 claim); at least one lens configured to adjust optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-8 of the ‘031 claim); an image sensor configured to capture a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 9-11 of the ‘031 claim); a memory that stores reference information on an inclination of the region (see lines 12-13 of the ‘031 claim); and a processor (see line 14 of the ‘031 claim) configured to acquire a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 15-16 of the ‘031 claim); and derive an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and the reference information (see lines 17-19 of the ‘031 claim).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the ‘031 patent claims a method (see line 1 of the ‘031 claim), the method comprising sequentially radiating, by a structured-light source, a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘031 claim); adjusting, by at least one lens, optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-8 of the ‘031 claim); capturing, by an image sensor, a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 9-11 of the ‘031 claim); acquiring, by a processor, a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 12-13 of the ‘031 claim); and deriving, by the processor, an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region stored in a memory (see lines 14-17 of the ‘031 claim).
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,821,846. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘846 patent claim the salient features of the claims of the instant application as set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘846 patent claims an apparatus (see line 1 of the ‘846 claim) comprising a structured-light source configured to sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘846 claim); at least one lens configured to adjust optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-11 of the ‘846 claim); an image sensor configured to capture a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 12-13 of the ‘846 claim); a memory that stores reference information on an inclination of the region (see lines 15-16 of the ‘846 claim); and a processor (see line 17 of the ‘846 claim) configured to acquire a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 18-19 of the ‘846 claim); and derive an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and the reference information (see lines 20-22 of the ‘846 claim).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 2 of the instant application with claim 1 of the ‘846 patent (see lines 5-11 of the claim).
Claim 3 of the instant application with claim 3 of the ‘846 patent.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the ‘846 patent claims a method (see line 1 of the ‘846 claim), the method comprising sequentially radiating, by a structured-light source, a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘846 claim); adjusting, by at least one lens, optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-11 of the ‘846 claim); capturing, by an image sensor, a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 12-14 of the ‘846 claim); acquiring, by a processor, a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 15-16 of the ‘846 claim); and deriving, by the processor, an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region stored in a memory (see lines 17-20 of the ‘846 claim).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 6 of the ‘846 patent (see lines 5-11 of the claim).
Claim 8 of the instant application with claim 8 of the ‘846 patent.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,105,029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘029 patent claim the salient features of the claims of the instant application as set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘029 patent claims an apparatus (see line 1 of the ‘029 claim) comprising a structured-light source configured to sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘029 claim); at least one lens configured to adjust optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-8 of the ‘029 claim); an image sensor configured to capture a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 9-11 of the ‘029 claim); a memory that stores reference information on an inclination of the region (see lines 12-13 of the ‘029 claim); and a processor (see line 14 of the ‘029 claim) configured to acquire a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 15-17 of the ‘029 claim); and derive an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and the reference information (see lines 18-20 of the ‘029 claim).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 2 of the instant application with claim 2 of the ‘029 patent.
Regarding claim 6, claim 4 of the ‘029 patent claims a method (see line 1 of the ‘029 claim), the method comprising sequentially radiating, by a structured-light source, a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range (see lines 2-4 of the ‘029 claim); adjusting, by at least one lens, optical paths of the plurality of structured lights such that each of the plurality of structured lights is radiated to a region on an object (see lines 5-8 of the ‘029 claim); capturing, by an image sensor, a plurality of reflected lights generated by the plurality of structured lights reflected from the region (see lines 9-11 of the ‘029 claim); acquiring, by a processor, a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor (see lines 12-14 of the ‘029 claim); and deriving, by the processor, an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region stored in a memory (see lines 15-18 of the ‘029 claim).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 5 of the ‘029 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable in view of the prior art should the double patenting rejections set forth above be properly overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus, the apparatus comprising, among other essential features, a structured-light source configured to sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range; and a processor configured to acquires a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor; and derive an angle of the region of the object with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and the reference information on an inclination of the region, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method, the method comprising, among other essential steps, sequentially radiating, by a struc0239565tured-light source, a plurality of structured lights, each of the plurality of structured lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range; acquiring, by a processor, a plurality of light quantity values of the plurality of reflected lights from the image sensor; and deriving, by the processor, an angle of the region with respect to a reference plane based on the plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region stored in a memory, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, US Pat. 8,224,066 to Haeusler discloses a device for performing deflectometric determination of the local slope of an object, where (Fig. 2) light passes through a controllable grating generator 1 that is an LCD screen or micromirror array in order to represent a sine grating 2. The grating is imaged by imaging optics 3 and is reflected by a beam splitter 4, where the reflected light passes through an objective lens 5 to image a specimen 6. There is a distance d between the object and a grating image 7 as seen in Fig. 2. The reflected light passes back through the objective lens and the beam splitter, passes through another lens 8 to be imaged by camera 10. A computer 11 is used to determine the slope of the object on the basis of a grating period p and the previously mentioned distance d (see Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 60).
Additionally, US 2021/0239565 to Dahl discloses a device for measuring an optical element (Fig. 1) where a light source 14 has a plurality of light segments 18 arranged in a regular square grid. The source emits light that passes through a condensing lens 6, a reticle 16, and a beam splitter 17. An image of the light source 14’ can be found at lens 2. The light passing through the lens is reflected on the surface 13 of object 12, with that light passing back to the beam splitter to be reflected and detected by sensor 21. The orientation of the surface can be determined from the position of the crosshairs formed by the image of the reticle on the sensor with a reference measurement being carried out at an ideal optical surface for comparison of the reflection of the surface with that reference measurement (see paragraphs 0046-0050).
However, this prior art, when taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose the specifics of the claimed invention as set forth above such as having a structured-light source sequentially radiate a plurality of structured lights, the lights having a pattern corresponding to a predetermined phase range, and deriving an angle of the region of the object being measured with respect to a reference plane based on the detected plurality of light quantity values and reference information on an inclination of the region as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 10 2011 050 518 to Westhoff et al. discloses a device for measuring the inclination of a surface 7 of an object 2 above reference surface 3 (see Fig. 1); however, this device does not use structured light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 23, 2026
