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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: positioning mechanism in claims 7 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 limitation “positioning mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification recites the function of the positioning mechanism without providing further information as to what the mechanism is (for example, some sort of general motion stage or the elements that make up the positioning mechanism). Further, the drawings do not add any additional evidence as to what the positioning mechanism is as Fig. 3 depicts the positioning mechanism 10 as a rectangular box. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH11178014A) in view of Kitabayashi (JP2008242099A) and Huang (US20160131901A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an examination method of an optical module (paragraph [0001]), the optical module including a display panel (paragraph [0002] discloses the panel is a liquid crystal panel, a type of display panel) that displays a video (most LCDs are capable of displaying video) and a projection lens (paragraph [0002] discloses a projection lens) that projects the video to be displayed on the display panel (paragraph [0003]), the method sequentially including:
a test pattern display step of displaying, on the display panel, a test pattern (paragraph [0003] discloses the projection of a test pattern);
a test pattern receiving step of receiving, the test pattern including each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions projected from the projection lens (paragraph [0007] discloses a sensor which receives the projected pattern);
a parallelism calculation step of calculating, by the controller, parallelism of light in the region of each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions cut out in the phase distribution cutting-out step (paragraph [0024]); and
an inclination determination step of determining, by the controller, presence or absence of inclination of the display panel with respect to the projection lens from the parallelism of light in the region of each light flux (paragraph [0022] discloses an alpha-rotation, which is the angle corresponding to inclination. The examiner is interpreting inclination to be the "up-down" direction rotation).
Yamamoto fails to teach a test pattern including at least three or more dot-shaped light-on portions;
a light receiving unit of a wavefront sensor;
a phase distribution calculation step of calculating, by a controller, a phase distribution of a wavefront of the test pattern received by the wavefront sensor; and
a phase distribution cutting-out step of cutting out, by the controller, a region of each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions of the test pattern from the phase distribution of the wavefront.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical module examination, Kitabayashi discloses using dot-shapes rather than other patterns (paragraph [0008]), and also discloses a cutting out step based on the light flux (paragraph [0009] discloses choosing the area to be focused on by whether or not the brightness is greater or equal to a preset threshold. The examiner is interpreting this to mean that if the threshold is not met, the region will not be examined, thus essentially cut-out).
Kitabayashi discloses the use of a dot-shape instead of other shapes in the patterns ensures there will be no overlap in the pixels (paragraph [0008]). Kitabayashi further discloses that by cutting out a portion of the area, unwanted optical effects from the projection element may be limited (paragraph [0009]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Yamamoto with the dot shaped pattern and cutting out step taught in Kitabayashi to ensure there are no overlaps between pixels and limit unwanted optical effects, therefore improving the accuracy of the examination.
Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi fails to teach a light receiving unit of a wavefront sensor; and
a phase distribution calculation step of calculating, by a controller, a phase distribution of a wavefront of the test pattern received by the wavefront sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical module examination, Huang discloses receiving light from a test pattern by a wavefront sensor (12, Fig. 1) and a controller (13, Fig. 1) which calculates a phase distribution of the test pattern (Fig. 12 depicts a phase distribution of the test pattern. The examiner is interpreting this to mean a phase distribution is calculated).
Yamamoto aims to align a display panel with a projection lens (paragraph [0002]). Huang discloses a phase distribution allows for positional displacement to be determined with high accuracy (paragraphs [0009] and [0183]). Further, a wavefront sensor is a well-known and widely used way of measuring the phase of light beams, rather than just light intensity like the CCD camera taught in Yamamoto. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method taught in Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi with the wavefront sensor and phase distribution calculation steps taught in Huang as the phase distribution allows for a high accuracy method of determining displacement.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the at least three or more dot-shaped light-on portions comprises four dot-shaped (Kitabayashi: paragraph [0008]) light-on portions (Yamamoto: Fig. 3 depicts four light patterns, B1, B2, B3, and B4),
the display step displays the test pattern including the four dot-shaped (Kitabayashi: paragraph [0008]) light-on portions, and arranges the dot-shaped light-on portions at positions symmetrical with respect to two axes orthogonal to each other on the display panel (Fig. 3 depicts B1 and B2 on one axis, and B3 and B4 on a second axes orthogonal to the first) with a position where an optical axis of the projection lens passes through the display panel as an origin (Yamamoto: paragraph [0014] discloses the patterns B1, B2, B3 and B4 are for position measurement in the z-direction, which is the optical axis; Fig. 2 depicts the x-axis as projecting "out" of the panel), and
the inclination determination step determines, by the controller, that there is an inclination of the display panel with respect to the projection lens when there is a difference in the parallelism among the respective light fluxes (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] discloses the calculation of any inclination of the display panel) of the two dot-shaped (Kitabayashi: paragraph [0008]) light-on portions positioned symmetrically with respect to two axes orthogonal to each other on the display panel with the position where the optical axis of the projection lens passes through the display panel as an origin (Yamamoto: Fig. 3 depicts at least two patterns on two orthogonal axes, A1 and A2).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the dot shaped pattern taught in Kitabayashi to ensure there are no overlaps between pixels and limit unwanted optical effects, therefore improving the accuracy of the examination.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches an inclination adjusting step of performing the examination method of the optical module according to Claim 1, and when the inclination determination step determines, by the controller, that there is an inclination of the display panel (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] discloses the calculation of any inclination of the display panel), performing adjustment of the inclination of the display panel with respect to the projection lens by a positioning mechanism that adjusts the inclination of the display panel under the control of the controller such that parallelism of light in the region of each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions coincides (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] further discloses the adjustment of the panel by a 6-axis robot to compensate for any inclination).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches after the inclination determination step, an optical axis direction adjusting step of moving the display panel in an optical axis direction of the projection lens (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] discloses the adjustment in the z-axis direction, which corresponds to the optical axis of the projection lens) and adjusting the display panel by adjusting a position of the display panel by the positioning mechanism under the control of the controller such that parallelism of light in the region of each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions matches with a design value of parallelism of the optical module (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] further discloses the adjustment of the panel by a 6-axis robot to compensate for any inclination).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH11178014A) in view of Kitabayashi (JP2008242099A) and Huang (US20160131901A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US20120044345A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the inclination determination step determines, by the controller, that there is an inclination of the display panel with respect to the projection lens when there is a difference in the parallelism among the light fluxes of the dot-shaped (Kitabayashi: paragraph [0008]) light-on portions (Yamamoto: paragraph [0022] discloses the calculation of any inclination of the display panel).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the dot shaped pattern taught in Kitabayashi to ensure there are no overlaps between pixels and limit unwanted optical effects, therefore improving the accuracy of the examination.
Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang fails to teach the at least three or more dot-shaped light-on portions comprises three dot-shaped light-on portions,
the display step displays the test pattern including the three dot-shaped light-on portions, and arranges the three dot-shaped light-on portions at positions equidistant from a position where an optical axis of the projection lens passes through the display panel.
However, in the same field of optical alignment, Liu teaches a method of aligning a display panel which uses three light patterns (cross patterns shown in Fig. 2D), which are equidistant from the optical axis (the examiner is interpreting the optical axis to be projecting "out" from the center of the screens. Further, the examiner is interpreting the center of the cross pattern to be the equidistant point, as the center of the cross is used for reference of pitch and width distance in paragraph [0056]).
Liu discloses this method of pattern placement enables a high quality of alignment (paragraph [0008]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the three patterns taught in Liu in order to keep the alignment high quality.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH11178014A) in view of Kitabayashi (JP2008242099A) and Huang (US20160131901A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen (CN110132544A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach the light receiving unit of the wavefront sensor has a size of (2 × L × tanθ + D) or more,
where θ is an angle of view of projection light of the optical module,
D is an effective diameter of the projection lens, and
L is a distance between the optical module and the wavefront sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical examination of optical modules, Chen teaches the sensor has a greater imaging field of view than the projection field of view (paragraph [0047]). The examiner is interpreting this to mean it has a size greater than (2 × L × tanθ + D).
Chen discloses the field of view of the sensor must be greater than the projection field of view in order to ensure the pattern is fully imaged (paragraph [0054]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the sensor size taught in Chen in order to ensure the full pattern is examined.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JPH11178014A) in view of Kitabayashi (JP2008242099A) and Huang (US20160131901A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tarrant (Determining the accommodative response from wavefront aberrations. Journal of Vision 2010;10(5):4. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.5.4.).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach the parallelism calculation step calculates, by the controller, the parallelism from defocus aberration and astigmatism.
However, in the same field of endeavor of the calculation of parallelism, Tarrant teaches a method of calculating parallelism from defocus aberration (eqs. 1 and 2) and astigmatism (eqs. 3-5).
Tarrant discloses this method of calculating parallelism yields sharper images under certain conditions (page 10, column 2, paragraph 1), which would lead to better examination of the optical module. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the method of calculating parallelism taught in Tarrant as it yields better image quality and better examination.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang teach the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the phase distribution cutting-out step forms the region of each light flux of the dot-shaped light-on portions into an elliptical shape (Kitabayashi: paragraph [0009] discloses choosing the area to be focused on by whether or not the brightness is greater or equal to a preset threshold. The examiner is interpreting this to mean that if the threshold is not met, the region will be cut-out and not examined; paragraph [0079] discloses the area examined may be an elliptical shape).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the cutting out step taught in Kitabayashi to ensure there are no overlaps between pixels and limit unwanted optical effects, therefore improving the accuracy of the examination.
Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang fails to teach calculating, by the controller, the parallelism using an elliptical Zernike polynomial.
However, Tarrant teaches a method of calculating parallelism using Zernike polynomials (page 3, column 2, paragraph 5; eqs. 1-5).
As discussed above in claim 5, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Yamamoto as modified by Kitabayashi and Huang with the method of calculating parallelism taught in Tarrant as it yields better image quality and better examination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights