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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 2/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 appears to be missing a verb in the clause starting with “wherein” (e.g., “a ring-shaped mask element is arranged”). Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the “evaluator” in claim 1, interpreted as corresponding to the “evaluation device” described in paragraph 10 as having or being a camera, though other descriptions of the evaluation device, such as in paragraph 16 are not interpreted as required.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 10 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 4 recites the limitation "the sharpness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as introducing a sharpness.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the light intensity" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as introducing a light intensity.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a ring-shaped mask element”. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same ring-shaped mask element as is introduced as part of the apparatus in claim 1 or a newly-introduced second ring-shaped mask element. The claim is interpreted as not requiring a second ring-shaped mask element.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 already introduces a ring-shaped mask element in line 2 of the claim, which, as described above, is not interpreted as being required to be a separate ring-shaped mask element from that of claim 10. Additionally, the language of claim 10 does not require any particular way of arranging the ring-shaped mask element. Finally, the material or article worked upon (such as an astigmatic optical test object) does not generally limit apparatus claims (such as to an apparatus to test an astigmatic optical test object), as described in MPEP 2115. As a result, claim 10, as a whole, fails to further limit the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Percival (US patent 5301004).
Regarding claim 1, Percival teaches an apparatus to test an astigmatic optical test object, the apparatus comprising:
an illuminator having a light source (COL. 1, line 65), a ring-shaped mask element (FIG. 1, occluder 15, when the aperture has an annular ring, as shown in FIG. 4. Note that, while FIG. 1 depicts the occluder 15 as between the lens 12 under test and the sensor surface 21, in COL. 2, lines 26-32 it is pointed out that the beam of light may travel first through the aperture and then through the lens to be tested. The embodiment of Percival relied on in this action is such an embodiment, with the occluder 15 optically upstream of the lens under test, where the occluder may reasonably be regarded as a component of the illuminator, alongside the means to produce the light and collimate the light.) and a collimation optical unit (FIG. 1, collimating the light to produce collimated beam of light 14), the collimation optical unit being formed to emit to the test object light beams of the ring-shaped mask element illuminated by the light source in the form of collimated test light (COL. 2, lines 26-32 point out that the collimated beam can go through the aperture before reaching the lens under test); and
an evaluator, which is configured to record and evaluate an image generated by the test object in response to the test light (photosensitive device 21, along with flip-in lenses 30 and 32) in order to determine an axis position of the test object and an optical parameter related to the axis position (COL. 9, lines 56-59 describe determining an orientation angle (i.e., an angular position) of the major and minor axes of the measured ellipse with respect to the sensor surface, which is related to the orientation of the axis of cylinder power).
Regarding claim 2, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), having at least one movement device, which is configured to cause a relative movement between the test object and the illuminator and/or the evaluator, or of components of the illuminator and/or the evaluator (FIG. 1, the unnumbered pivot points for flipping in flip-in lenses 30 and 32 move components of the evaluator).
Regarding claim 3, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the evaluator is configured to evaluate the image in order to determine a modulation transfer function with respect to the determined axis position and/or at least one further optical parameter of the test object (COL. 9, line 64 through COL. 10, line 26 describe several further optical parameters of the test object to determine, including spherical and cylindrical powers, which are further optical parameters. Note that determining a modulation transfer function with respect to the determined axis position is claimed as an alternative limitation to determining at least one further optical parameter.).
Regarding claim 7, Percival teaches a method for testing an astigmatic optical test object, the method comprising:
emitting, towards the test object, collimated light from a collimation optical unit of an illuminator (FIG. 1, collimated beam of light 14) having a ring-shaped mask element (FIG. 1, occluder 15, when the aperture has an annular ring, as shown in FIG. 4) which is approximately located in a focal plane of the collimation optical unit (note that the condition for light being collimated by a collimator is that a source of the light is located in the focal plane of the collimator. The fact that FIG. 1 shows collimated beam 14 entering the figure already collimated indicates that the illuminator must be approximately located in a focal plane of the collimation unit. Also see COL. 2, lines 26-32 which point out that the collimated beam can go through the aperture before reaching the lens under test, making it easier to interpret the aperture as part of the illuminator alongside the light source and collimator) and is illuminable by a light source in the form of test light (FIG. 1, collimated light beam 14. Also see COL. 2, lines 26-32 which point out that the collimated beam can go through the aperture before reaching the lens under test);
recording an image generated by the test object in response to the test light using an evaluator (photosensitive device 21, along with flip-in lenses 30 and 32); and
evaluating the image using the evaluator to determine an axis position of the test object and an optical parameter related to the axis position (COL. 9, lines 56-59 describe determining an orientation angle (i.e., an angular position) of the major and minor axes of the measured ellipse with respect to the sensor surface, which is related to the orientation of the axis of cylinder power).
Regarding claim 8, Percival teaches the method according to claim 7 (as described above), further comprising: causing a relative movement between the test object and the illuminator and/or the evaluator, or of components of the illuminator and/or the evaluator using at least one movement device (FIG. 1, the unnumbered pivot points for flipping in flip-in lenses 30 and 32 move components of the evaluator).
Regarding claim 10, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein a ring-shaped mask element (FIG. 1, aperture 15) arranged in the apparatus (FIG. 1, apparatus 10) for testing an astigmatic optical test object (FIG. 1, lens 12).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percival (US patent 5301004).
Regarding claim 5, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
While Percival does teach that the evaluator is configured to evaluate ring contours of the image caused by the ring-shaped mask element and the test object in order to determine the axis position (Percival uses an edge detection algorithm for choosing pixels along the contour of the ring (COL. 7-8), which are used to perform a least-squares fit to a polynomial representing the ellipse expected to be measured (COL. 9) and determining optical parameters from that ellipse (COL. 10)), which is not quite the same as evaluating the ring contours based on a maximum of the light intensity along the ring contours.
In particular, Percival uses the image processing techniques to detect an edge in the image in order to choose pixel positions that lie on a particular ellipse (COL. 9), at the cost of requiring computations (see COL. 8, lines 12-14, which shows a preference for computational efficiency). On the other hand, an ellipse such as the one cast on the sensor by the aperture through the lens under test would already have maximum intensities on the ellipse, which would enable detecting the ellipse in a less computationally intensive way.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Percival by basing the evaluation of ring contours on a maximum of light intensity on the ellipse, skipping the computations required in a multi-step edge detection algorithm, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Percival (US patent 5301004) in view of Ruprecht (foreign patent publication WO2023274822).
Regarding claim 4, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above),
While Percival does teach that the evaluator is configured to evaluate ring contours of the image caused by the ring-shaped mask element and the test object in order to determine the axis position, Percival does so based on maximum pixel intensities along the ring contours (COL. 8, line 59-COL. 9, line 3 describe using maximum intensity pixels to determine the axis position) rather than sharpness or contrast.
In the same field of endeavor of lensmeters incorporating annular masking portions, Ruprecht does teach using sharpness to study the optical properties (paragraphs 35-36 in the provided translation, which link the modulation transfer function used by Ruprecht to contrast, another term for sharpness). By calculating the modulation transfer function, a measure of sharpness, Ruprecht is able to study properties such as the focal length, which can be direction dependent (see paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Percival with the sharpness measurement of Ruprecht as a way to study the optical properties, including direction-dependent optical properties, of the lens under test, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Percival teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
While Percival mentions prior art that works with parts that rotate (COL. 1, background of the invention), Percival does not explicitly teach that the evaluator is configured to evaluate the image by incrementally changing an evaluation direction of a direction-dependent modulation transfer function in order to determine the axis position based on a maximum of the modulation transfer function.
In the same field of endeavor of lensmeters incorporating annular masking portions, Ruprecht does teach that the evaluator is configured to evaluate the image by incrementally changing an evaluation direction of a direction-dependent modulation transfer function in order to determine the axis position based on a maximum of the modulation transfer function (paragraph 20 discusses the use of a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function by performing measurements for different orientations. Paragraph 39 points out that modulation transfer function is direction-dependent.). By measuring a modulation transfer function in a direction-dependent way over multiple orientations, Ruprecht is able to measure other direction-dependent properties (paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Percival with the measurements of modulation transfer function at multiple orientations of Ruprecht, achieving the predictable result of calculating the direction-dependent properties of the lens under test with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Percival teaches the method according to claim 8 (as described above).
While Percival mentions prior art that works with parts that rotate (COL. 1, background of the invention), Percival does not explicitly teach that the causing step and the recording step are repeatedly carried out iteratively in order to record a plurality of images at different orientations between the test object and the illuminator and the evaluator, and wherein the plurality of images are evaluated in the evaluating step.
In the same field of endeavor of lensmeters incorporating annular masking portions, Ruprecht does teach that the causing step and the recording step are repeatedly carried out iteratively in order to record a plurality of images at different orientations between the test object and the illuminator and the evaluator, and wherein the plurality of images are evaluated in the evaluating step (paragraph 20 discusses the use of a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function by performing measurements for different orientations. Also see FIG. 5). By taking several measurements, Ruprecht is able to account for the asymmetry in the optical system (paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Percival with the measurements of at multiple orientations of Ruprecht achieving the predictable result of calculating the direction-dependent properties of the lens under test with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights