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 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 12, recitations of “the detector arrangement” should perhaps read --the optoelectronic detector arrangement--.
Regarding claim 6, “a ratio of detector element width and detector element periodicity” should perhaps read --a ratio of detector element width to detector element periodicity--.
Regarding claim 10, “results in suppression of 0th diffraction order” should perhaps read --result in suppression of the 0th diffraction order--.
Claims 2-18 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites that the amplitude grating structure is configured both for “preferential transmission into +/-1st diffraction orders” and for “suppression of odd diffraction orders.” Because the +1st and -1st diffraction orders are themselves odd numbered diffraction orders, it is unclear whether those first orders are preferentially transmitted or suppressed. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “preferential transmission into +/-1st diffraction orders and suppression of odd diffraction orders for a predetermined wavelength range” to recite --preferential transmission into +/-1st diffraction orders and suppression of higher odd-numbered diffraction orders for a predetermined wavelength range--, in accordance with Spec. p. 18, ll. 24-26.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“Light field image sensors based on the Talbot effect,” published 2009)1 in view of Amaya-Benitez (US 20200096614 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a position measuring system for determining spatial position information (pp. 5902-5903, § 3, angle sensitive pixel (ASP) array localization setup resolving lateral and z direction of source location), comprising:
at least one light source (p. 5902, § 3, “light emitting diode” coupled into the fiber above the array); and
and at least one optical receiver unit (Fig. 4(a)) including a scanning grating (Fig. 4(a), grating; p. 5900, § 2, “analyzer grating” corresponding to the scanning grating, configured to analyze the spatially shifting optical pattern as incident angle is swept, as further detailed in Fig. 6) and an optoelectronic detector arrangement having light sensitive surfaces oriented in a direction of the scanning grating (Fig. 4(a), diodes having its light sensitive surface regions facing the analyzer grating; p. 5900; § 2); wherein […].
Wang does not disclose: “the detector arrangement includes two first detector regions arranged in a detection plane mirror-symmetrically to a first axis of symmetry that extends through a center of the detector arrangement in the detection plane, the first axis of symmetry being oriented orthogonally to a longitudinal extension direction of the first detector regions; and wherein each of the first detector regions is shaped as an isosceles, acute-angled triangle having an apex, with an apex angle, oriented in a direction of the center of the detector arrangement.”
However, Amaya-Benitez teaches a detector arrangement (Fig. 3, pixel array 15, as further detailed in Fig. 10) includes two first detector regions (¶ 98, for each pixel area 43’ of Fig. 10, includes two first detector regions, as mapped in Annotated Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 10 & Second Annotated Fig. 10, introduced below) arranged in a detection plane mirror-symmetrically to a first axis of symmetry that extends through a center of the detector arrangement in the detection plane, the first axis of symmetry being oriented orthogonally to a longitudinal extension direction of the first detector regions (see Annotated Figs. 3 & 10, below); and wherein each of the first detector regions is shaped as an isosceles, acute-angled triangle having an apex, with an apex angle, oriented in a direction of the center of the detector arrangement (¶¶ 100-101, each element 45a’ having a “triangular cross section” and being directed toward the common center point; Second Annotated Fig. 10, each first detector region shaped as an isosceles triangle with an acute angle apex pointing toward the common center point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector arrangement of Wang with the teachings of Amaya-Benitez with a reasonable expectation of success in order reduce optical noise, improve detector fill factor, and provide for more reliable optical measurements (Amaya-Benitez, ¶¶ 28, 40-45, 51, 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez teaches the position measuring system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the detector arrangement includes two further detector regions arranged identically to the two first detector regions and arranged mirror-symmetrically to a second axis of symmetry that extends in the detection plane through the center of the detector arrangement and that is oriented orthogonally to the first axis of symmetry (Amaya-Benitez, Third Annotated Fig. 10 & Fourth Annotated Fig. 10, introduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
1123
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez teaches the position measuring system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the light source and the optical receiver unit are movable relative to each other (Wang, p. 5901, § 3, light source mounted on a variable angle arm above the array, where pp. 5902-5903, § 3, the light source is moved to multiple locations in three dimensional space relative to the array; Fig. 9(a), relative lateral movement; Fig. 9(b), relative height movement).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez further in view of Saari (US 20190257987 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez teaches the position measuring system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the scanning grating is arranged in a plane parallel to the detection plane (Wang, Fig. 4(a), grating parallel to diodes) and includes a periodic arrangement of grating regions along at least one grating direction (Wang, p. 5901, § 3, grating formed of “equal width bars and gaps” having a set period, where the direction of periodic repetition corresponding to the grating direction) that is […].
Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez does not teach: [at least one grating direction] “arranged at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal extension direction of the detector regions.” However, Saari teaches the limitation in Fig. 9A, where the scanning grating (diffraction grating 28) having a grating direction (grating axis 30) disposed on top of the detector arrangement (pixel array 38; ¶ 85) having pixel detector regions (pixels 40) defined by longitudinal extension direction (pixel axis 58 or 60; ¶ 77), wherein the grating direction is arranged at an angle of 45° to the longitudinal extension direction (Fig. 9A & ¶ 96, grating axis 30 oriented 45° to either pixel axis 58 or 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the position measuring system of Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez, with the teachings of Saari, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known variation in the orientation of a planar optical grating, and an artisan skilled in optical sensing systems would have recognized that adopting the grating direction of Saari would provide for angular sensitivity in an additional directional component, thereby yielding more reliable position determination across a wider range of orientations. This update represents a known improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez further in view of Rissing (US 20050098472 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez teaches the position measuring system according to claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the scanning grating is arranged on a side of a transparent cover plate of the receiver unit that is oriented in a direction of the detector arrangement. However, Rissing teaches the scanning grating (Fig. 1, lower structuring 7b; ¶ 46, lower structuring 7b is a “periodic graduation structure” used as a “scanning structure”) is arranged on a side of a transparent cover plate (Fig. 1, transparent cover element 6; ¶ 46, “transparent cover element 6” is arranged above component 2 and is a plane parallel glass plate) of the receiver unit that is oriented in a direction of the detector arrangement (Fig. 1, detector component 2; ¶ 46, lower structuring 7b is a “periodic graduation structure” located on the “lower side facing component 2”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the position measuring system of Wang in view of Amaya Benitez with the transparent cover plate arrangement of Rissing with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the grating and maintain precise alignment with the detector arrangement, thereby yielding a system that is more robust and environmentally protected having improved measurement stability and reliability (Rissing, ¶¶ 46, 50-51, 53).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez further in view of Spillman (“Fiber optic linear displacement sensor based on a variable period diffraction grating,” published 1989)2.
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez teaches the position measuring system according to claim 1. Although Wang teaches employment of an LED in p. 5901, § 3, Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez does not teach: wherein the light source includes an LED adapted to emit radiation in a wavelength range λ = 850 nm +/- 20 nm and having a coherence length of less than or equal to 7 µm. However, Spillman teaches on p. 3551, “835 nm LED with a spectral width (FWHM) of 45 nm” corresponding to a coherence length of 6.84 um, as established from the coherence length relationship. See, e.g., Eq. 12.2 of Husvogt (2018)3 where lc = (2 * ln(2) / π) * (λ02 / Δλ) = (2 * ln(2) / π) * (835 nm)2 / 45 nm = 6.84 um.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the LED of Spillman for the LED of Wang because each serves the established function of illuminating a diffraction grating measurement system (Wang, § 3, p. 5901; Spillman, p. 3551, Fig. 2). Spillman demonstrates the use of the disclosed LED in a diffraction grating sensor that achieved high accuracy with little sensitivity to temperature or variations in LED wavelength and intensity, providing both a reason for substitution and a reasonable expectation of success (Spillman, p. 3550, Abstract; p. 3552, Conclusion). Further, updating the Talbot distance and grating depth based on operating wavelength would have constituted routine optical design (Wang, § 3, pp. 5901-5902, teaching half-Talbot distance at operating wavelength). Accordingly, the modification involves the simple substitution of one known illumination source for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 18 are 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 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 3-4, 9 and 16 be allowable because Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez fails to fully anticipate or render obvious the specified apex angle and central apex contact of claims 3 and 16, the periodic parallel elements within each triangular detector region of claim 4, or the combined amplitude phase scanning grating of claim 9. Saari, Rissing, Spillman and Husvogt fail to remedy the deficiencies of Wang in view of Amaya-Benitez.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Tondorf (US 6995836 B1) discloses the measurement of relative angular position using a light source, grating, and structured photodetector that detects a shifting intensity stripe pattern (Figs. 1-2, 5-6; Col. 3:37-45;Col. 4:8-38; Col. 5:48-65), however does not teach the triangular apex angle details of claims 3 and 16, the claimed element layout within triangular regions of claim 4, or the overlying phase layer arrangement of claim 9. Rather, Tondorf employs linear photo elements and phase regions within transparent openings or between opaque strips (Figs. 1, 5-6; Col. 6:17-43; Col. 9:44-54).
Muscatell (US 4412105 A) discloses using laser light and opposing tapered detector regions to convert light spot movement into position information (Figs. 4-5, 8-9; Col. 5:5-10, 44-55; Col. 6:59-68; Col. 8:23-62). However, Muscatell does not teach the angular geometry of claims 3 and 16, the periodic detector elements of claim 4, or the combined amplitude phase scanning grating of claim 9. Rather, Muscatell uses separated wedge shaped apertures over continuous selenium layers with lenses and mirrors (Figs. 4-5, 8-9; Col. 5:23-55; Col. 8:23-45; Col. 9:24-39).
Wong (US 20070120049 A1) discloses an optical position encoder with a light emitter and shaped photodetectors that sense relative motion and produce sinusoidal signals (Figs. 7, 8A-8D; ¶¶ 1, 33, 35). However, Wong does not teach the specified apex angle and central apex contact of claims 3 and 16, the periodic parallel elements within each triangular detector region of claim 4, or the combined amplitude phase scanning grating of claim 9, but instead teaches photodetectors matched to rectangular encoder elements, or shaped encoder elements viewed by rectangular photodetectors (Figs. 7-9; ¶¶ 29, 33, 36, 40).
Although the prior art discloses certain limitations of claims 3, 4, 9 and 16, no single reference discloses, expressly or inherently, all limitations as recited in the claim. Furthermore, the record does not establish a reason that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, claims 3-4, 9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5-7, 10, 13-14 and 18 would be allowable by virtue of dependency. Claim 11 would be allowable by virtue of dependency, if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Albert Wang, Patrick Gill, and Alyosha Molnar, “Light field image sensors based on the Talbot effect,” Appl. Opt. 48, 5897-5905 (2009).
2 W. B. Spillman, D. R. Patriquin, and D. H. Crowne, “Fiber optic linear displacement sensor based on a variable period diffraction grating,” Appl. Opt. 28, 3550-3553 (1989).
3 Husvogt, Ploner, and Maier, “Optical Coherence Tomography,” in Medical Imaging Systems: An Introductory Guide, Springer, 2018, Ch. 12.
Prosecution Insights