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 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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "said slope" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting this slope to the be the alpha value defined in paragraphs [0126]-[0137].
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 1-3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1).
Regarding claim 1, Niu teaches a method for analyzing a reflective surface (S) ('surface under test' - Fig. 2) through deflectometry (abstract), with a system comprising a display (Disp) arranged such that luminous images displayed on the display are reflected from said reflective surface (S) (see 'Screen' display a luminous pattern onto the surface - Fig. 2), and imaging optics (IO) configured to image said surface on a matrix detector (Det) (Fig. 2 discloses a camera. Paragraph [0066] of the instant application's specification discloses the imaging optics and matrix may form a camera. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the camera depicted in Fig. 2 to be the imaging optics and detector, as most modern cameras have an imaging lens of some sort and an image sensor),
the method comprising the following steps:
A successively displaying, on the display, n luminous images
I
l
i
indexed i, with n>2 (page 3, column 1, last paragraph - column 2, first paragraph describes displaying a series of patterns),
B detecting, on the matrix detector, n images
I
d
i
, referred to as detected images, obtained by reflection of the n luminous images from the reflective surface (page 3, column 2, first paragraph discloses capturing the reflected images),
C determining a function, referred to as object absolute phase function (faps), based on the n detected images
I
d
i
(page 3, column 2, paragraphs 1 and 2), by applying a mathematical function g to said n detected images (eq. 5), the function g and the number of images n being determined such that the absolute phase function is bijective (page 4, column 1, paragraph 1 discusses unwrapping the phase function, which would make it bijective),
the function g also satisfying the relationship:
g(k.M) = g(M), with k being any real value (inherent to equation 5).
Niu fails to teach the n luminous images being obtained through n spatial shifts xi along a direction X of one and the same pattern M(x), a luminous image I having a binarized luminous intensity that is obtained by dithering the pattern M(x-xi), and
D comparing the object absolute phase function (faps) with what is referred to as a reference absolute phase function (fapMref), determined by replacing the surface (S) to be characterized with a plane mirror (Mref) defining what is referred to as a reference plane (Pref), and deducing therefrom information about the shape of said surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical measurements of object surfaces, Wang teaches the use of a luminous image (fringe pattern) with a binarized intensity obtained by dithering the original pattern (see page 6632, section 3).
Wang discloses that dithering optimizes image patterns and results in high-quality shape measurement (page 6631, 2nd column, last paragraph - page 6632, first column, first paragraph). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the deflectometry method of Niu with the dithering technique taught in Wang in order to produce higher quality measurements.
Niu as modified by wang fails to teach D comparing the object absolute phase function (faps) with what is referred to as a reference absolute phase function (fapMref), determined by replacing the surface (S) to be characterized with a plane mirror (Mref) defining what is referred to as a reference plane (Pref), and deducing therefrom information about the shape of said surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry, Risner teaches a method of determining information about the shape of a surface (slope) by comparing a reference surface to the object surface (paragraph [0010]).
Risner discloses that the comparison method improves the speed at which the surface is analyzed (paragraph [0010]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deflectometry method that determines the absolute phase functions taught in Niu as modified by Wang with the comparison to a reference method taught in Risner in order to speed up the surface analysis.
Regarding claim 2, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the pattern is a sinusoid, n=4, the four spatial shifts corresponding to phase shifts respectively equal to 0, π/2, π, 3π/2 (Niu: page 3, column 2, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 3, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the function g is defined by:
g = arctg[(fc4-fc2)/(fc1-fc3)], with fci corresponding to n=4 variables,
fci corresponding to the images detected with said reflective surface for calculating the object absolute phase function, and to the images detected with said reference mirror for calculating the reference absolute phase function (Niu: see equation 5 and the related description in paragraph 2 of column 2, page 3).
Regarding claim 9, Niu teaches a system for analyzing a reflective surface (S) (('surface under test' - Fig. 2) through deflectometry (abstract), comprising:
a display arranged such that luminous images displayed on the display are reflected from said reflective surface, and configured to successively display n luminous images I indexed i, with n>2 (page 3, column 1, last paragraph - column 2, first paragraph describes displaying a series of patterns),
imaging optics (IO) and a matrix detector (Det), the imaging optics being configured to image said surface (S) on said matrix detector, the matrix detector being configured to detect n images
I
d
i
, referred to as detected images, obtained by reflection of the n luminous images
I
l
i
from the reflective surface (S) (page 3, column 2, first paragraph discloses capturing the reflected images),
a processing unit (PU) configured to (a processing unit is not explicitly disclosed, however many of the figures are computer generated (for example, Figs. 7-18). It is therefore the position of the examiner that a processing unit of some kind was used to carry out the steps outlined by Niu):
determine a function, referred to as object absolute phase function (faps), based on the n detected images
I
d
i
(page 3, column 2, paragraphs 1 and 2), by applying a mathematical function g to said n detected images (eq. 5), the function g and the number of images n being determined such that the absolute phase function is bijective (page 4, column 1, paragraph 1 discusses unwrapping the phase function, which would make it bijective), the function g furthermore satisfying the relationship:
g(k.M) = g(M), with k being any real value (inherent to equation 5)
Niu fails to teach the n luminous images being obtained through n spatial shifts xi along a direction X of one and the same pattern M(x), a luminous image I(x,y) having a binarized luminous intensity that is obtained by dithering the pattern M(x-xi), and
the processing unit configured to compare the object absolute phase function (faps) with what is referred to as a reference absolute phase function (fapMref), determined by replacing the surface (S) to be characterized with a plane mirror (Mref) defining what is referred to as a reference plane (Pref), and deduce therefrom information about the shape of said surface.
However, Wang teaches the use of a luminous image (fringe pattern) with a binarized intensity obtained by dithering the original pattern (see page 6632, section 3).
Wang discloses that dithering optimizes image patterns and results in high-quality shape measurement (page 6631, 2nd column, last paragraph - page 6632, first column, first paragraph). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the deflectometry device of Niu with the dithering technique taught in Wang in order to produce higher quality measurements.
Niu as modified by Wang fails to disclose the processing unit configured to compare the object absolute phase function (faps) with what is referred to as a reference absolute phase function (fapMref), determined by replacing the surface (S) to be characterized with a plane mirror (Mref) defining what is referred to as a reference plane (Pref), and deduce therefrom information about the shape of said surface.
However, Risner teaches a device which determines information about the shape of a surface (slope) by comparing a reference surface to the object surface (paragraph [0010]).
Risner discloses that the comparison method improves the speed at which the surface is analyzed (paragraph [0010]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the deflectometry device that determines the absolute phase functions taught in Niu as modified by Wang with the comparison to a reference method taught in Risner in order to speed up the surface analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Niu in view of Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions that, when implemented on a computer, cause a system for analyzing a reflective surface through deflectometry to carry out steps of the method as claimed in claim 1 (Niu: Niu does not explicitly disclose the use of a computer, however the figures depicting the results of the technique taught by Niu are computer generated (for example, Figs. 7-18). It is therefore the position of the examiner that a computer was used to carry out the steps of the method outlined by Niu).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Horn (WO2010094658A1).
Regarding claim 4, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach each luminous image displays only one period of the sinusoidal pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry, Horn teaches a method where the display image is only one period of a sinusoidal pattern (paragraph [0113]).
Horn discloses that tracking the position of a point on the surface being examined becomes more complicated when more than one period is used in the display image (paragraph [0113]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the deflectometry method taught in Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the sinusoidal pattern taught in Horn in order to simply the tracking of the point on the surface.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chambard (FR3018603A1).
Regarding claim 6, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the pattern is a Gaussian, n=2, a first spatial shift corresponding to a Gaussian centered on one edge of the luminous image I and a second spatial shift corresponding to a Gaussian centered on another edge of the image I, and wherein the function g is defined by:
g=Ln(fc1) - Ln(fc2), with fci corresponding to n=2 variables,
fci corresponding to the images detected with said reflective surface for calculating the object absolute phase function, and to the images detected with said reference mirror for calculating the reference absolute phase function.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry, Chambard teaches a method where the projected patterned is a Gaussian (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 9), and where the reflected images correspond to spatial shifts in the Gaussian pattern (paragraph [0017]). Chambard does not explicitly teach the shifted Gaussian resulting from the reflected images being in a natural logarithm form. However a Gaussian is typically written in exponential form, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the natural logarithm expression is just the inverse of a Gaussian, and is frequently used to solve equation with more ease than exponential form.
Chambard discloses the use of a Gaussian pattern eliminates effects induced by double reflection and also results in miniaturization of the device (paragraph [0017]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the Gaussian pattern and shifts taught in Chambard in order to eliminate unwanted effects and keep the device smaller.
Regarding claim 6, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the pattern is Fourier transform invariant.
However, Chambard teaches the use of a Gaussian pattern (paragraph [0018]; Fig. 9), which is Fourier transform invariant.
As discussed above in claim 5, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the Gaussian pattern taught in Chambard in order to eliminate unwanted effects and keep the device smaller.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You ("Theoretical analysis and experimental investigation of the Floyd-Steinberg-based fringe binary method with offset compensation for accurate 3D measurement," Opt. Express 30, 26807-26823 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.460519).
Regarding claim 7, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the dithering is carried out using the Floyd-Steinberg dithering algorithm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical measurement of object surfaces, You teaches a dithering method which utilizes the Floyd-Steinberg algorithm (abstract; title; section 2.1).
You discloses that typical dithering techniques cause an offset which distorts final measurements, but the Floyd-Steinberg algorithm compensates for that and eliminates any deformation caused by the offset (page 26821, paragraph 3). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the dithering of images taught by Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the dithering using the Floyd-Steinberg algorithm taught by You in order to eliminate any unwanted deformations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schiltz (US10598604B1) and Liu ("High-accuracy measurement for small scale specular objects based on PMD with illuminated film". Optics and Laser Technology, 44(2), 459-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2011.08.012).
Regarding claim 8, Niu in view of Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the imaging optics have an optical axis coincident with a normal to the reference plane, wherein said luminous images illuminate said surface perpendicularly to said reference plane, wherein the following are defined:
an optical center O of the imaging optics,
a positive distance Ddp between the display and the reference plane Pref and a positive distance between the reference plane and the optical center O, and wherein the step D comprises the following sub-steps:
determining, for points on the surface S, an angle β determined based on the shift between the object absolute phase function and the reference absolute phase function at said point on the surface,
determining said slope α with the following formula:
α
=
0.5
β
-
π
2
+
acos
D
p
o
D
d
p
cos
β
+
π
2
.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry, Schiltz teaches a method which uses imaging optics with an optical axis normal to the reference plane (260, Fig. 5), and the luminous images illuminate the surface perpendicularly as well (Fig. 5 also depicts a beam splitter sending the images from 220 to the object surface 210 perpendicularly).
Schiltz discloses that this orientation provides a sensor with a high depth sensitivity over a large dynamic range compared to sensors that are held at an angle (column 1, line 47 - column 2, line 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the imaging optics configuration taught by Schiltz in order to have a high depth sensitivity over a large dynamic range.
Niu as modified by Wang, Risner and Schiltz fails to teach the following are defined:
an optical center O of the imaging optics,
a positive distance Ddp between the display and the reference plane Pref and a positive distance between the reference plane and the optical center O, and wherein the step D comprises the following sub-steps:
determining, for points on the surface S, an angle β determined based on the shift between the object absolute phase function and the reference absolute phase function at said point on the surface,
determining said slope α with the following formula:
α
=
0.5
β
-
π
2
+
acos
D
p
o
D
d
p
cos
β
+
π
2
.
However, in the same field of endeavor of deflectometry, Liu teaches a reference surface (see Fig. 1, surface labeled 'Reference' or Fig. 3, surface labeled 'Reference mirror'), an optical center of the imaging optics ('O' in Fig. 3), a positive distance between the display and reference plane ('d' in Fig. 1), and a positive distance between the reference place and optical center (this would also be 'd' in Fig. 1, or the distance between 'Reference Mirror' and 'O' in Fig. 3). Liu also teaches determined an angle based on the shift between the object and reference plane (2α, Fig. 1), and a slope (α, Fig. 1). Liu does not explicitly teach a formula for calculating the slope; however it is the position of the examiner one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at this formula when fitting the slope indicated by Liu.
Liu discloses that the technique of using this setup is low-cost, easy to use, and has high accuracy (page 462, column 1, paragraph 2). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Niu as modified by Wang, Risner and Schiltz with the distances taught in Liu in order to achieve a low-cost and easy to use setup which still has high accuracy.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu ("Adaptive Phase Correction for Phase Measuring Deflectometry Based on Light Field Modulation," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2021.3067954) in view of Wang ("Three-dimensional shape measurement with binary dithered patterns," Appl. Opt. 51, 6631-6636 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.51.006631) and Risner (US20160025591A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Schiltz (US10598604B1).
Regarding claim 10, Niu as modified by Wang and Risner teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, but fails to teach the imaging optics have an optical axis (OA) arranged perpendicularly to said reference plane, and wherein the optical system furthermore comprises a beam splitter (BS) configured to send said luminous images onto said surface perpendicularly to said reference plane.
However, Schiltz teaches a device with imaging optics with an optical axis normal to the reference plane (260, Fig. 5), and a beam splitter to send the images onto the surface perpendicularly (Fig. 5 also depicts a beam splitter 250 sending the images from 220 to the object surface 210 perpendicularly).
Schiltz discloses that this orientation provides a sensor with a high depth sensitivity over a large dynamic range compared to sensors that are held at an angle (column 1, line 47 - column 2, line 2). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Niu as modified by Wang and Risner with the imaging optics configuration taught by Schiltz in order to have a high depth sensitivity over a large dynamic range.
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 11:00-8:00 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, 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