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
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 has “to controlling” which should be -controlling-. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant asserts that Unuchek fails to disclose or suggest the feature of claim 1 regarding the optical system further comprising a dynamic optical element positioned in contact with the stop aperture or within a distance of 5mm away from the stop aperture along the optical axis of the optical system because Unuchek discloses in Fig. 1 an aperture 13a at a far distance from the dynamic optical element 16. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion regarding the aperture 13a being distant from the dynamic optical element 16. However, at least one of elements 18 adjacent the dynamic optical element 16 in Fig. 1 of Unuchek has an aperture that corresponds to the aperture recited in the previous office action dated 12/4/2025 (see page 4, line 7 reciting stop aperture of component 18). As can be seen in Fig. 1 of Unuchek, the outer two components 18 are lens, thus a component 18 next to the dynamic optical element 16 is an aperture (Unuchek, [0038]). Given the size constraints of internal components of an optical stylus and in order to properly focus light via the lens 18, aperture 18, and dynamic optical element 16 to provide focused light to the image sensor 20 and stylus tip 13a distances between the dynamic optical component 16 and aperture are inherently or implicitly within 5mm of each other to provide proper focusing of the light from the light emitting unit 22 (See MPEP 2112). Regarding claim 12, one light source 22b of light emitting unit 22 is arranged such that the central axis of the light cone emitted by the light source 22b intersects the optical axis (central axis of optical stylus 10) of the object lens 18 for optimal illumination intensity. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 12-13 is unpersuasive at this time. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 9 and 14 are persuasive, and these claims are objected to but in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unuchek et al. (WO 2022/064412, hereinafter “Unuchek”, cited by Applicant). Regarding claim 1, Unuchek discloses an optical system for a position determination device, in particular an optical stylus (Fig. 1, [0037], optical stylus 10), for determination of the position of said device relative to a position-encoded surface having different position-encoded patterns (Figs. 2, 2a, [0037-0038], position encoded surface 50 having position encoded patterns 52), the optical system comprising: an image sensor for capturing at least one image of any position-encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface (Fig. 1, [0043], image sensor 20), one or more light sources for illuminating any of said position-encoded patterns (Fig. 1, [0059], light emitting unit 22), a stop aperture (Fig. 1, [0038], aperture of optical components 18), an object lens with a side positioned away from the stop aperture by a first distance (Fig. 1, [0038], objective lens of optical components 18; see also Fig. 5) and an image lens with a side positioned away from the stop aperture by a second distance (Fig. 1, [0038], objective lens of optical components 18), the optical system further comprising a dynamic optical element positioned in contact with the stop aperture or within a distance of 5mm away from the stop aperture along the optical axis of the optical system (Fig. 1, dynamic optical element 16 along the central columnar axis as an optical axis of optical stylus 10), the dynamic optical element being configured to be electrically actuated in order to form onto the image sensor in-focus images of any position-encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface within working distances of the position determination device comprising said optical system (Fig 4b, [0042, 0044-0046], the dynamic optical element 16 being configured to be electrically actuated (e.g., optically tunable liquid lens or shifted by an actuator) in order to form onto the image sensor 20 in-focus images of any position-encoded pattern 52 of the position-encoded surface 50 within working distances D (Fig. 4a) of the position determination device 10 comprising said optical system). Regarding claim 12, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more light sources is/are arranged such that the central axis of the light cone emitted by the or each light source intersects the optical axis of the object lens for optimal illumination intensity (Unuchek, Fig. 1, [0059], one light source 22b of light emitting unit 22 is arranged such that the central axis of the light cone emitted by the light source 22b intersects the optical axis (central axis of optical stylus 10) of the object lens 18 for optimal illumination intensity). Regarding claim 13, Unuchek discloses an optical stylus comprising the optical system according to claim 1 (Unuchek, Fig. 1, [0037], optical stylus 10).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unuchek.
Regarding claim 2, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the range of said working distances has a minimum value of 10mm and a maximum value of 100mm. However, Unuchek further teaches that the working distance D can be any range up to 15cm (Fig. 4a, [0053], working distance D can be up to 15cm). Therefore, 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 optical system of Unuchek to have wherein the range of said working distances has a minimum value of 10mm and a maximum value of 100mm, as taught by Unuchek, because such a modification is simple a design choice selection of a possible optical stylus working distance range that is within the range contemplated by Unuchek for producing a predictable result of capturing an image of the position encoded patterns 52).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unuchek in view of Price et al. (US 3,599,003, hereinafter “Price”). Regarding claim 4, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first distance is within a range from 0.5 to 1.2 of the focal length of the object lens. Price teaches wherein the first distance is within a range from 0.5 to 1.2 of the focal length of the object lens (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 48-69, distance of lens 18 to pinhole aperture 24 as a first distance is set to focal length of lens 18 (i.e., 1.0 value) which is within range of 0.5 to 1.2 of the focal length of the lens 18). Therefore, 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 optical system of Unuchek to have wherein the first distance is within a range from 0.5 to 1.2 of the focal length of the object lens, such as taught by Price, for the purpose of having light rays parallel to the lens axis entering the optical stylus (Price, col. 3, lines 48-69).
Regarding claim 6, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose of the type of an object-space telecentric system, wherein said first distance is equal to the focal lens of the object lens. Price teaches of the type of an object-space telecentric system, wherein said first distance is equal to the focal lens of the object lens (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 48-69, distance of lens 18 to pinhole aperture 24 as a first distance is set to focal length of lens 18 (i.e., 1.0 value) which is within range of 0.5 to 1.2 of the focal length of the lens 18). Therefore, 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 optical system of Unuchek to have a type of an object-space telecentric system, wherein said first distance is equal to the focal lens of the object lens, such as taught by Price, for the purpose of having light rays parallel to the lens axis entering the optical stylus (Price, col. 3, lines 48-69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 21 are allowed (once claim 15 has claim objection corrected).
Claims 3, 5, 7-11, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 2, but neither Unuchek nor other cited prior art teaches alone or in combination wherein the ratio of magnification of the optical system between in-focus image form onto the image sensor, when the position determination device is at the minimum and maximum values of said range, is below 3.
Regarding claim 5, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but neither Unuchek nor other cited prior art teaches alone or in combination the optical system of the type of a double telecentric system, wherein said first distance is equal to the focal distance of the object lens whereas said second distance is equal to the focal distance of the image lens. Regarding claim 7, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but neither Unuchek nor other cited prior art teaches alone or in combination wherein said first distance is shorter than the focal length of the object lens, and wherein said second distance is shorter than the focal length of the image lens.
Regarding claim 9, Unuchek discloses the optical system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a circuit board, wherein the dynamic optical element is an electrotuneable lens, which is mounted on a side of the circuit board, said circuit board comprising the stop aperture.
Regarding claim 14, Unuchek discloses the optical stylus according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said one or more light sources (Fig. 1, elements 22a-c) is/are mounted between said dynamic optical element (16) and the object lens (18).
Regarding claim 15, Unuchek discloses a method for determining a working distance of an optical stylus as a function of the 3D pose of the optical stylus relative to a position-encoded surface comprising position-encoded patterns, the optical stylus comprising: - an image sensor for capturing at least one image of any position-encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface, - an object lens and an image lens arranged on both sides of a stop aperture, - a dynamic optical element mounted between the object lens and the image lens and configured to be electrically actuated in order to form onto the image sensor in-focus image of any position-encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface within a range of working distances along the optical axis of the optical stylus; - a distance measurement sensor for determining a measured distance, the method comprising: - a processing unit, comprising processing circuitry, controlling the dynamic optical element as a function of said measured distance, and the processing unit correcting in real time the signal acquired by the distance measurement sensor as a function of the tilt angle and the roll angle of the 3D pose of the optical stylus relative to the position-encoded surface to compute the working distance.
Regarding claim 21, neither Unuchek nor other cited prior art teaches alone or in combination the following: Optical system for a position determination device, in particular an optical stylus, for determination of the position of said device relative to a position-encoded surface having different position-encoded patterns, the optical system comprising: an image sensor configured for capturing at least one image of any position- encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface, one or more light sources for illuminating any of said position-encoded patterns, a stop aperture, an object lens with a side positioned away from the stop aperture by a first distance and an image lens with a side positioned away from the stop aperture by a second distance, the optical system further comprising a dynamic optical element positioned in contact with the stop aperture and/or within a distance of 5mm away from the stop aperture along the optical axis of the optical system, the dynamic optical element being configured to be electrically actuated to form onto the image sensor in-focus images of any position-encoded pattern of the position-encoded surface within working distances of the position determination device comprising said optical system, wherein the optical system is of the type of a double telecentric system, and wherein said first distance is equal to the focal length of the object lens and said second distance is equal to the focal length of the image lens.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent from claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH PATRICK FOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3877. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
JOSEPH PATRICK FOX
Examiner
Art Unit 2622
/JOSEPH P FOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2622 /PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights