DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/08/2025, wherein claims 1-83, 90, 92-93, 95-96 and 114-206 have been cancelled. Claims 84-89, 91, 94 and 97-113 have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 03/23/2026, 06/04/2025 and 01/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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.
Claims 84, 86, 100, 106-108 and 110-113 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiklof (U.S. 2007/0272841), in view of Johnson (U.S. 9,188,874).
Regarding claim 84, Wiklof discloses a method of determining whether a sample has moved, the method comprising:
acquiring a first test image of the sample in part by scanning an array of micro optical elements over a first test scan pattern; acquiring, after a period of delay, a second test image of the sample in part by scanning the array over a second test scan pattern, wherein the second test scan pattern corresponds in size to the first test scan pattern; and determining, by a processor of a computing device, whether sample motion has occurred between acquiring the first test image and acquiring the second test image at least in part by comparing the second test image to the first test image (Wiklof Figs. 21 and 8, [0116], [0088]-[0090]: imager 102 that provides motion compensation by determining if object is moving. The imager determines rate of movement by comparing positions of target object in two images taken at two distinct times, hence first test image and second test image after a period of delay, determining the displacement of the target object between two images and calculate rate of movement in accordance with the amount of displacement and the amount of time between the images; Figs. 5-7, [0069]-[0070]: an imager 102 having scanner 108 that provides first scan pattern 502 and second scan pattern 502’ across FOV 111 of surface of target object 504, hence second test pattern corresponding in size to the first test scan pattern; [0057]: scanner 108 can be a MEMS mirror, hence scanning array of micro optical elements).
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein the first test scan pattern has an area that is smaller than an area of a unit cell of a micro optical element in the array of micro optical elements.
However, Johnson discloses wherein the first test scan pattern has an area that is smaller than an area of a unit cell of a micro optical element in the array of micro optical elements (Johnson Col. 9, lines 44-57, Col.13, lines 33-47: microlens array 301 for spots array; Col. 14, lines 5-20, Fig. 19: a scan pattern within each unit cell of the spot pattern. The scan range of each spot is limited to a small area defined by a single unit cell. Hence, test scan pattern has an area that is smaller than an area of a unit cell of a micro optical element in the array of micro optical elements).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof, and further incorporate having the first test scan pattern has an area that is smaller than an area of a unit cell of a micro optical element in the array of micro optical elements, as taught by Douady-Pleven, to simplify the design requirements for scan mechanism (Johnson Col 14, lines 5-20).
Regarding claim 86, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses wherein comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises comparing one or more corresponding pairs of pixels from the first test image and the second test image (Wiklof [0116], [0088]-[0090]: imager 102 that provides motion compensation by determining if object is moving. The imager determines rate of movement by comparing positions of target object in two images taken at two distinct times, wherein the scanner is for pixels as in [0094], [0118], hence comparing pixels of first and second test images).
Regarding claim 100, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses wherein each position in the first test scan pattern corresponds to a respective position in the second test scan pattern (Wiklof Figs. 5-7, [0075]: the two scan patterns are interlaced, hence each position in the first test scan pattern corresponds to a respective position in the second test scan pattern as in Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 106, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses acquiring, after a second period of delay, a third test image of the sample in part by scanning the array over a third test scan pattern, wherein the third test scan pattern corresponds in size to the first test scan pattern; and determining whether sample motion has occurred at least in part by comparing the third test image to the second test image (Wiklof [0070]: Different scanning patterns can be used including raster, linear, circular, vector and other patterns, hence a third scan pattern can be used, i.e. third test image; Figs. 21 and 8, [0116], [0088]-[0090]: imager 102 that provides motion compensation by determining if object is moving. The imager determines rate of movement by comparing positions of target object in two images taken at two distinct times, hence first test image and second test image after a period of delay, determining the displacement of the target object between two images and calculate rate of movement in accordance with the amount of displacement and the amount of time between the images. The second test image can be the third test image as discussed above).
Regarding claim 107, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 106.
Wiklof discloses wherein the second period of delay is equal to the period of delay (Figs. 21 and 8, [0116], [0088]-[0090]: imager 102 that provides motion compensation by determining if object is moving. The imager determines rate of movement by comparing positions of target object in two images taken at two distinct times, hence first test image and second test image after a period of delay. The second test image or third test of image can be used as discussed in claim 106, hence the same period of delay for second or third test image).
Regarding claim 108, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 106.
Wiklof discloses determining that the sample motion has occurred, wherein acquiring, after the second period of delay, the third test image occurs subsequent to determining that the sample motion has occurred (Wiklof Fig. 21, [0117]-[0119]: determine if object is moving as in step 2102, compensate for movement and then repeat step 2102. Hence, obtaining and comparing test images including third test images subsequent to determining that sample motion has occurred).
Regarding claim 110, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses wherein the first test scan pattern and the second test scan pattern are each a one-dimensional scan pattern (Wiklof [0070]: linear scan pattern can be used, hence one-dimensional scan pattern).
Regarding claim 111, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 110.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein a size of the first test scan pattern and/or a size of the second test scan pattern is less than a size of the unit cell.
However, Johnson discloses wherein a size of the first test scan pattern and/or a size of the second test scan pattern is less than a size of the unit cell (Johnson Col. 9, lines 44-57, Col.13, lines 33-47: microlens array 301 for spots array; Col. 14, lines 5-20, Fig. 19: a scan pattern within each unit cell of the spot pattern. The scan range of each spot is limited to a small area defined by a single unit cell. Hence, test scan pattern has size that is less than a size of the unit cell).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof, and further incorporate having wherein a size of the first test scan pattern and/or a size of the second test scan pattern is less than a size of the unit cell, as taught by Douady-Pleven, to simplify the design requirements for scan mechanism (Johnson Col 14, lines 5-20).
Regarding claim 112, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses wherein the first test scan pattern and/or the second test scan pattern corresponds to a fast scan axis (Wiklof [0093]: fast scan can be used).
Regarding claim 113, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof discloses wherein the first test scan pattern and the second test scan pattern are each a two-dimensional scan pattern (Wiklof [0070], [0050]: two dimensional scan pattern can be used. Raster scan pattern or circular scan pattern can be used).
Claims 87-88 and 104-105 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiklof (U.S. 2007/0272841), in view of Johnson (U.S. 9,188,874), further in view of Mjumdar et al. (U.S. 2017/0011259) hereinafter Majumdar.
Regarding claim 87, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether a rate of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample-motion-rate threshold.
Majumdar discloses whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether a rate of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample-motion-rate threshold (Majumdar [0025]-[0026]: optical sensing component receives a pattern of light from surface of object which may change between different points in time based on motion of object such as pattern received at time = 1 second and pattern received at time = 15 seconds. Hence obtain first and second images of pattern of light at different times; Fig. 7, [0050], [0005]: determine pixel displacement as a function of time between successive images. Determine the rate of changes in the captured pattern between successive images and compare the rate of change to a threshold. Determine of motion present in the object or type of movement of object when the rate of change exceeds the threshold as also in [0059], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson, and further incorporate having whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether a rate of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample-motion-rate threshold, as taught by Majumdar, for improved motion detection of object (Majumdar [0050], [0059]).
Regarding claim 88, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether an amount of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample motion threshold.
Majumdar discloses whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether an amount of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample motion threshold (Majumdar [0025]-[0026]: optical sensing component receives a pattern of light from surface of object which may change between different points in time based on motion of object such as pattern received at time = 1 second and pattern received at time = 15 seconds. Hence obtain first and second images of pattern of light at different times; Fig. 7, [0050], [0005]: determine pixel displacement as a function of time between successive images. Determine the rate of changes in the captured pattern between successive images and compare the rate of change to a threshold. Determine of motion present in the object or type of movement of object when the rate of change exceeds the threshold as also in [0059], [0064]; [0037]-[0038]: determine amount of displacement to determine temporal changes; [0062]-[0063], Fig. 12: determine whether motion is present in the object based determined temporal changes in the pattern).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson, and further incorporate having whether sample motion has occurred is determined based, at least in part, on whether an amount of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample motion threshold, as taught by Majumdar, for improved motion detection of object (Majumdar [0050], [0059]).
Regarding claim 104, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 60 seconds.
Majumdar discloses wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 60 seconds (Majumdar [0025]-[0026]: optical sensing component receives a pattern of light from surface of object which may change between different points in time based on motion of object such as pattern received at time = 1 second and pattern received at time = 15 seconds. Hence obtain first and second images of pattern of light at different times) with period of delay of at least 2 seconds and no more than 60 seconds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson, and further incorporate wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 60 seconds, as taught by Majumdar, for improved motion detection of object (Majumdar [0050], [0059]).
Regarding claim 105, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 30 seconds.
Majumdar discloses wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 30 seconds (Majumdar [0025]-[0026]: optical sensing component receives a pattern of light from surface of object which may change between different points in time based on motion of object such as pattern received at time = 1 second and pattern received at time = 15 seconds. Hence obtain first and second images of pattern of light at different times) with period of delay of at least 2 seconds and no more than 30 seconds).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson, and further incorporate wherein the period of delay is at least 2 seconds and no more than 30 seconds, as taught by Majumdar, for improved motion detection of object (Majumdar [0050], [0059]).
Claims 101-103 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiklof (U.S. 2007/0272841), in view of Johnson (U.S. 9,188,874), further in view of Attwood (U.S. 2011/0177841).
Regarding claim 101, Wiklof and Johnson disclose all the limitations of claim 84.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises determining an intensity difference between a portion of the first test image and a spatially corresponding portion of the second test image.
However, Attwood discloses comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises determining an intensity difference between a portion of the first test image and a spatially corresponding portion of the second test image (Attwood claim 1, [0005], [0008], [0014]-[0025]: detect movement of object by determining difference in intensity of a respectively pixel between temporally adjacent images; [0014]: frame-to-frame difference in intensity for each pixel in the current image compared with its corresponding pixel in the previous image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson, and further incorporate comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises determining an intensity difference between a portion of the first test image and a spatially corresponding portion of the second test image, as taught by Attwood, for low-computational cost motion detection with high degree of immunity of false alarms from illumination changes (Attwood [0001]).
Regarding claim 102, Wiklof and Johnson and Attwood disclose all the limitations of claim 101.
Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the intensity difference comprises directly comparing a pixel of the first test image to a pixel of the second test image.
However, Attwood discloses determining the intensity difference comprises directly comparing a pixel of the first test image to a pixel of the second test image (Attwood [0014]-[0025]: frame-to-frame difference in intensity for each pixel in the current image compared with its corresponding pixel in the previous image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Wiklof and Johnson and Attwood, and further incorporate determining the intensity difference comprises directly comparing a pixel of the first test image to a pixel of the second test image, as taught by Attwood, for low-computational cost motion detection with high degree of immunity of false alarms from illumination changes (Attwood [0001]).
Regarding claim 103, Wiklof and Johnson and Attwood disclose all the limitations of claim 101.
Wiklof discloses wherein comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises: applying an image correlation technique thereby determining a displacement from the first test image to the second test image (Wiklof [0117]: determine displacement of the target object between two images taken at two distinct times by comparing the positions of the target object in the two images, hence an image correlation technique to determine the displacement).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 85, 89, 91,94, 97-99 and 109 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 85, the prior arts of record individually or in combination fail to discloses within the context of the claim the feature of comparing the second test image to the first test image comprises determining a stabilization index (S(t2-t1)) as cited in claim 85.
Regarding claim 89, the prior arts of record individually or in combination fail to discloses within the context of the claim the feature of determining that the rate of sample motion is no more than the predetermined sample- motion-rate threshold; and subsequently acquiring a full image in part by scanning the array of micro optical elements over a scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern has an area corresponding to the area of the unit cell as cited in claim 89.
Regarding claim 98, the prior arts of record individually or in combination fail to discloses within the context of the claim the feature of wherein the area of the first test scan pattern and the area of the second test scan pattern are each no less than one thousandth and no more than one quarter of the area of the unit cell as cited in claim 98.
Regarding claim 99, the prior arts of record individually or in combination fail to discloses within the context of the claim the feature of wherein the area of the first test scan pattern and the area of the second test scan pattern are each no less than one thousandth and no more than one hundredth of the area of the unit cell as cited in claim 99.
Regarding claim 109, the prior arts of record individually or in combination fail to discloses within the context of the claim the feature of determining that a rate of sample motion is no more than a predetermined sample-motion-rate threshold; and subsequently notifying a user that the sample has self-stabilized as in claim 109.
Claims 91, 94 and 97 are objected because they depend on objected parent claim 89 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights