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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 2, 9-11 and 13 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.
In regards to claim 2, the limitation wherein the ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:5 is unclear with respect to the limitation in claim 1 that states a first length is greater than a second length. The Examiner is assuming that the ratio of 1:1 is included in the limitation and it is unclear how the lengths can be the same size, when a first length is greater than a second length. For examining purposes the first length will be greater than the second length as noted in claim 1. Please clarify.
In regards to claim 9, the limitation wherein the ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:15 is unclear with respect to the limitation in claim 9 that states a first length is greater than a second length in the second aperture. The Examiner is assuming that the ratio of 1:1 is included in the limitation and it is unclear how the lengths can be the same size, when a first length is greater than a second length. For examining purposes the first length will be greater than the second length in the second aperture as noted in claim 9. Please clarify.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 9.
In regards to claim 13, the limitation wherein the ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:15 is unclear with respect to the limitation in claim 12 that states a first length is greater than a second length in the second aperture. The Examiner is assuming that the ratio of 1:1 is included in the limitation and it is unclear how the lengths can be the same size, when a first length is greater than a second length. For examining purposes the first length will be greater than the second length in the second aperture as noted in claim 12. Please clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (US 6885464) in view of Yanagisawa et al. (US 20040004727).
Re claim 1: Pfeiffer teaches a three dimensional scanning apparatus of detecting a contour of an object (fig. 1), the three dimensional scanning apparatus comprising: an illumination light source (3) adapted to emit an illumination beam (see fig. 1); a first aperture element (4) (see fig. 1, col. 6, lines 43-53); a reference pattern generator (13) adapted to provide a reference pattern by the illumination beam, and project the reference pattern onto the object (8) through the first aperture element (4) (see fig. 1, col. 6, lines 1-53); and an optical receiver (11) adapted to receive a detection pattern reflected from the object (8), so as to analyze difference between the reference pattern and the detection pattern for acquiring the contour (col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1); wherein the first aperture element (4) has a shape (col. 5, lines 4-13, fig. 1), but does not specifically teach has two first lateral sides opposite to each other and two second lateral sides opposite to each other, a first length of one of the first lateral sides is greater than a second length of one of the second lateral sides. Yanagisawa teaches an aperture element (5) has two first lateral sides opposite to each other and two second lateral sides opposite to each other, a first length of one of the first lateral sides is greater than a second length of one of the second lateral sides (see fig. 2 and 4, rectangular/oblong shapes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a shape similar to Yanagisawa for the aperture in Pfeiffer in order to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements.
Re claim 2: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the first length is greater than the second length, the two first lateral sides have the same length or different lengths, the two second lateral sides have the same length or different lengths (Pfeiffer, col. 5, lines 4-13, fig. 1, Yanagisawa, see fig. 2 and 4, rectangular/oblong shapes), but does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:5. Since, Yanagisawa teaches a rectangular shape then the first side will be longer than the second side so that a ratio would be one to a number larger than one. Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA).
Re claim 3: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the first lateral side and the second lateral side respectively are a straight line (Yanagisawa, see fig. 2 and 4).
Re claim 5: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the reference pattern has a plurality of stripes arranged adjacent to each other, an extending direction of the first lateral side of the first aperture element is intersected with an arrangement direction of the plurality of stripes (Yanagisawa, abstract, fig. 2, 4 and 6, the longer direction intersects with the direction of the stripes in the reference pattern, Pfeiffer, col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1).
Re claim 6: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein an included angle between the extending direction of the first lateral side and the arrangement direction of the plurality of stripes is ninety degrees, or the extending direction is perpendicular to the arrangement direction and an angle error is allowed between the extending direction and the arrangement direction (Yanagisawa, abstract, fig. 2, 4 and 6, the longer direction intersects with the direction of the stripes in the reference pattern, Pfeiffer, col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1).
Re claim 7: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the reference pattern has a plurality of stripes arranged adjacent to each other, the first lateral side of the first aperture element is extended in an extending direction of the plurality of stripes, so as to keep a scanning depth of field of the three dimensional scanning apparatus and increase an intensity of the detection pattern (Yanagisawa, abstract, fig. 2, 4 and 6, the longer direction intersects with the direction of the stripes in the reference pattern, Pfeiffer, col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1).
Re claim 8: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the reference pattern has a plurality of stripes arranged adjacent to each other, the second lateral side of the first aperture element is shortened in an arrangement direction of the plurality of stripes, so as to keep an intensity of the detection pattern and increase a scanning depth of field of the three dimensional scanning apparatus (Yanagisawa, abstract, fig. 2, 4 and 6, the shorter direction parallel with the direction of the stripes in the reference pattern, Pfeiffer, col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1).
Re claim 9: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the three dimensional scanning apparatus further comprises a second aperture element (Pfeiffer, 10), the first aperture element (Pfeiffer, 4) and the second aperture element (Pfeiffer, 10) respectively are a quadrilateral aperture (Yanagisawa, shape, fig. 2); the second aperture element (Pfeiffer, 10) has two first lateral sides opposite to each other and two second lateral sides opposite to each other, a first length of one of the first lateral sides is greater than a second length of one of the second lateral sides (Yanagisawa, shape, rectangle, fig. 2), but does not specifically teach a ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:1.15. Since, Yanagisawa teaches a rectangular shape then the first side will be longer than the second side so that a ratio would be one to a number larger than one. Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA).
Re claim 10: Pfeffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein a difference between a first ratio of the first lateral side to the second lateral side of the first aperture element and a second ratio of the first lateral side to the second lateral side of the second aperture element is smaller than a preset threshold (Pfeiffer, the apertures 4 and 10, would have ratios according to their sides, which would have some difference below some value in order to ensure light is passed at a desired angle, see fig. 1, Yanagisawa, fig. 2 and 4, shape).
Re claim 11: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein a first included angle of the first lateral side and/or the second lateral side of the first aperture element relative to the reference pattern is the same as or similar to a second included angle of the first lateral side and/or the second lateral side of the second aperture element relative to the reference pattern (Pfeiffer, apertures 4 and 10, have rectangular shapes, Yanagisawa, fig. 2 and 4).
Re claim 12: Pfeiffer teaches a three dimensional scanning apparatus of detecting a contour of an object (fig. 1), the three dimensional scanning apparatus comprising: an illumination light source (3) adapted to emit an illumination beam (see fig. 1); a reference pattern generator (13) adapted to provide a reference pattern by the illumination beam, and project the reference pattern onto the object (8) (see fig. 1, col. 6, lines 1-53); a second aperture element (10); and an optical receiver (11) adapted to receive a detection pattern reflected from the object (8) through the second aperture element (10), so as to analyze difference between the reference pattern and the detection pattern for acquiring the contour (col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1); wherein the second aperture element (10) has a shape (col. 5, lines 4-13, fig. 1), but does not specifically teach has two first lateral sides opposite to each other and two second lateral sides opposite to each other, a first length of one of the first lateral sides is greater than a second length of one of the second lateral sides. Yanagisawa teaches an aperture element (5) has two first lateral sides opposite to each other and two second lateral sides opposite to each other, a first length of one of the first lateral sides is greater than a second length of one of the second lateral sides (see fig. 2 and 4, rectangular/oblong shapes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a shape similar to Yanagisawa for the aperture in Pfeiffer in order to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements.
Re claim 14: Pfeiffer teaches a three dimensional scanning apparatus of detecting a contour of an object (fig. 1), the three dimensional scanning apparatus comprising: an illumination light source (3) adapted to emit an illumination beam (see fig. 1); a first aperture element (4) (see fig. 1, col. 6, lines 43-53); a reference pattern generator (13) adapted to provide a reference pattern by the illumination beam, and project the reference pattern onto the object (8) through the first aperture element (4) (see fig. 1, col. 6, lines 1-53); and an optical receiver (11) adapted to receive a detection pattern reflected from the object (8), so as to analyze difference between the reference pattern and the detection pattern for acquiring the contour (col. 6, line 1 to col. 7, line 31, claim 1, fig. 1); wherein the first aperture element (4) has a shape (col. 5, lines 4-13, fig. 1), but does not specifically teach the first aperture element is first polygonal aperture element comprises a first section, a second section and a third section adjacent to each other, the first section and the third section are respectively disposed on two opposite sides of the second section, an area of the second section is smaller than an area of the first section and/or the third section. Yanagisawa teaches an aperture element (5) first polygonal aperture element comprises a first section, a second section and a third section adjacent to each other, the first section and the third section are respectively disposed on two opposite sides of the second section, an area of the second section is smaller than an area of the first section and/or the third section (see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal with section smaller than other sections). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a shape similar to Yanagisawa for the aperture in Pfeiffer in order to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements.
Re claim 15: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the first polygonal aperture element has two staggered diagonal lines, a length difference between the two diagonal lines is smaller than a preset threshold (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, two staggered diagonal lines make up the hexagonal shape, Pfeiffer, the apertures 4 and 10, would have ratios according to their sides, which would have some difference below some value in order to ensure light is passed at a desired angle, see fig. 1).
Re claim 16: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the first section, the second section and the third section are connected adjacent to each other in a transverse direction, a structurally longitudinal dimension of the first section orthogonal to the transverse direction is greater than a structurally longitudinal dimension of the second section orthogonal to the transverse direction (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal with section smaller than other sections in transverse and longitudinal direction).
Re claim 17: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein each lateral side of the first polygonal aperture element is an arc line or a straight line (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal with straight line).
Re claim 18: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches wherein a maximal structurally lateral dimension is smaller than a minimal structurally longitudinal dimension of the first polygonal aperture element (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal, with one dimension smaller than the other dimension), but does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of the maximal lateral dimension to the minimal longitudinal dimension is ranged between 1:1 and 1:5. Since, Yanagisawa teaches a rectangular shaped hexagon then the max lateral dimension will be shorter than the min longitudinal dimension so that a ratio would be one to a number larger than one. Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA).
Re claim 19: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein a minimal structurally longitudinal dimension of the second section is smaller than or equal to a minimal structurally longitudinal dimension of the first section and/or the third section (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal with section smaller than other sections in transverse and longitudinal direction).
Re claim 20: Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa teaches the three dimensional scanning apparatus, wherein the three dimensional scanning apparatus further comprises a second polygonal aperture element (Pfeiffer, 10, Yanagisawa, hexagonal/rectangular shape, fig. 4), the second polygonal aperture element comprises a first section, a second section and a third section adjacent to each other, the first section and the third section are respectively disposed on two opposite sides of the second section, an area of the second section is smaller than an area of the first section and/or the third section (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal with section smaller than other sections in transverse and longitudinal direction); and a maximal structurally lateral dimension is smaller than a minimal structurally longitudinal dimension of the second polygonal aperture element (Yanagisawa, see fig. 4, rectangular/oblong shape is hexagonal, with one dimension smaller than the other dimension), but does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of the maximal lateral dimension to the minimal longitudinal dimension is ranged between 1:1 and 1:15. Since, Yanagisawa teaches a rectangular shaped hexagon then the max lateral dimension will be shorter than the min longitudinal dimension so that a ratio would be one to a number larger than one. Without showing criticality one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have selected a specific ratio range for the lengths in order to block desired light, such as a size to block light from a slit structure as seen in Pfeiffer as modified by Yanagisawa figure 6, to increase focal depth and mitigate reduction in light quality providing for higher quality depth/contour measurements (MPEP 2144.04, IV, A/B and 2144.05, I, IIA).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the three dimensional scanning apparatus of claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first lateral side is an arc line or a turning line, and a sum of internal angles of the first aperture element is smaller than 360 degrees.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 13, the prior art of record individually or in combination fails to teach the three dimensional scanning apparatus of claim 12 as claimed, wherein the second aperture element is a quadrilateral aperture, a ratio of the first length to the second length is ranged between 1:1 and 1:1.15, the two first lateral sides have the same length or different lengths, the two second lateral sides have the same length or different lengths, more specifically in combination with the first lateral side is a straight line or an arc line or a turning line, and a sum of internal angles of the second aperture element is smaller than 360 degrees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights