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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification lacks section headers.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a),(2)(b) as being anticipated by Ooenoki et al. (US 6298152 B1), hereinafter “Ooenoki”.
Regarding claim 1, Ooenoki discloses an optical sensor for the detection of at least one height profile of an object surface in accordance with the principle of light sectioning method (abstract, Fig. 1, 2), the optical sensor comprising:
a light transmitter (ref 1) which is configured to project at least one light line onto the object surface (ref W, col. 3, lines 60-67);
a receiving unit (ref 2) comprising a light receiver (ref 2a) having an array of receiving elements and a receiving optics (ref 2b) arranged upstream of the light receiver for generating an image of the at least one projected light line on the light receiver (col. 3, line 65- col. 4, line 15); and
an evaluation unit (ref 3) connected to the light receiver and configured for determining the height profile from an image of the at least one projected light line recorded by the light receiver (col. 4, lines 5-15);
wherein the receiving unit further comprises a tunable aperture associated with the receiving optics and configured for varying the size and/or the shape of the aperture of the receiving optics (col. 4, lines 7-15),
wherein the evaluation unit is configured for controlling the tunable aperture in dependence from at least one image parameter of the image of the at least one projected light line (col. 4, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 2, Ooenoki discloses wherein the at least one image parameter comprises the presence of an image artefact, the depth of field, the sharpness, the brightness, and/or the level of noise in the recorded image (col. 4, lines7-8).
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.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooenoki as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the evaluation unit is configured for controlling the tunable aperture based on an optimization algorithm which determines a respective optimum set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture of the receiving optics for which the at least one image parameter converges to a respective predetermined optimum value.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the evaluation unit is configured for controlling the tunable aperture based on an optimization algorithm which determines a respective optimum set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture of the receiving optics for which the at least one image parameter converges to a respective predetermined optimum value as it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would choose an optimization algorithm in order to best control the size of the aperture.
Regarding claim 4, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the optimization algorithm determines the optimum set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture by an iteration process having a plurality of iteration steps wherein in each iteration step a different set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture is set, a corresponding image is recorded for this set point, and the at least one image parameter of this image is determined.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to include wherein the optimization algorithm determines the optimum set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture by an iteration process having a plurality of iteration steps wherein in each iteration step a different set point for the size and/or the shape of the aperture is set, a corresponding image is recorded for this set point, and the at least one image parameter of this image is determined. One would choose an iteration process in order to best control the size of the aperture.
Regarding claim 5, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the evaluation unit is configured for controlling the tunable aperture in dependence from a plurality of image parameters, and wherein the optimization algorithm determines the optimum set point for which an optimum approximation of the image parameters to their respective optimum values is achieved.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to include wherein the evaluation unit is configured for controlling the tunable aperture in dependence from a plurality of image parameters, and wherein the optimization algorithm determines the optimum set point for which an optimum approximation of the image parameters to their respective optimum values is achieved. One would choose a plurality of image parameters in order to best control the adjustment of the aperture.
Regarding claim 7, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the tunable aperture has a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the tunable aperture has a rectangular shape having a long side and a short side, as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed device was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). One would choose the claimed shape as a rectangular slit is common in optical devices to define and shape the beam.
Regarding claim 8, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the long side extends in a direction perpendicular to the light line.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the long side extends in a direction perpendicular to the light line, as it has been held that the configuration of a claimed device was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). One would choose the claimed shape as a rectangular slit is common in optical devices to define and shape the beam.
Regarding claim 9, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the ratio between the long side and the short side is adjustable.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the ratio between the long side and the short side is adjustable, as it has been held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). One would choose the claimed adjustment in order to shift the position of the centroid beam.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooenoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US 6885464 B1), hereinafter “Pfeiffer”.
Regarding claim 6, Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the tunable aperture is a tunable liquid aperture or a motorized iris aperture.
However, Pfeiffer teaches an optical measurement device (abstract) including wherein the tunable aperture is a tunable liquid aperture or a motorized iris aperture (col. 6, lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Ooenoki with the teaching of Pfeiffer by including wherein the tunable aperture is a tunable liquid aperture or a motorized iris aperture in order to have faster and more accurate tuning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (JP2009068986A) teaches a height measurement device and anticipates at least claim 1.
Engel (US 2014/0043610) teaches a conventional topographical sensor using a line focus beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 E 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877