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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome the objections to the specification. The objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes that applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, therefore the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. MPEP 2144.03 Sec. C.
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 1 and 3-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least one unwanted side peak”. The word “unwanted” is a subjective term, and the specification does not supply any objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). MPEP 2173.05(b) Sec. IV.
Claims 3-9 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 1.
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 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooenoki et al. (US 6298152 B1), hereinafter “Ooenoki”, and further in view of Yamada (JP2015052490A), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Yamada”, and Zhao et al. (US 2023/0324548 A1), hereinafter “Zhao”.
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 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 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 tunable 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 light line (col. 4, lines 7-15).
Ooenoki is silent regarding wherein the at least one image parameter includes a presence of an image artifact, wherein the image artifact is at least one of: at least one unwanted side peak, at least one side line in the image, multiple reflections of the at least one light line, and at least one ghost image of the at least one light line.
However, Yamada teaches optical measurement in a shape measuring device (abstract, Fig. 1) including adjusting wherein the at least one image parameter includes a presence of an image artifact (paragraphs [0025]-[0031])
Furthermore, Zhao teaches an imaging system (abstract) wherein the image artifact is at least one of: at least one unwanted side peak, at least one side line in the image, multiple reflections of the at least one light line, and at least one ghost image of the at least one light line (paragraph [0086]).
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 Yamada and Zhao by including wherein the at least one image parameter includes a presence of an image artifact, wherein the image artifact is at least one of: at least one unwanted side peak, at least one side line in the image, multiple reflections of the at least one light line, and at least one ghost image of the at least one light line as Yamada teaches changing an aperture size will determine a false image caused by multiple reflected light, while Zhao teaches the specific types of artifacts present in images, which are desirable to be removed for improved image analysis.
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 tunable 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 tunable 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 tunable 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 tunable aperture is set, a corresponding image is recorded for the set point, and the at least one image parameter of the corresponding 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 tunable 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 tunable aperture is set, a corresponding image is recorded for the set point, and the at least one image parameter of the corresponding 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 on 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 on 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 at least one 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 at least one 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 a 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 a 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, Yamada, and Zhao 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.
Suzuki (JP2014163812A) teaches an optical device including wherein the amount of blur is controlled by adjusting the aperture diameter, and could be combined with prior art of record to render at least claim 1 obvious.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights