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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in several Figures, such as Figures 5, 7, and 10-13 are blurry and difficult to read given the contrast between the text and the other imagery in each Figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 4, 13, and 20, the word “compute” in the next to last limitation of each claim should be amended to read “computing”, and the word “calculate” should be amended to read “calculating”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-7, 13-16, and 20 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.
As for claim 4, the claim recites the phrase “wherein the laser speckle shifts define a speckle motion” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 4 depends, recites the limitation “laser speckle motion”. Because of the use of the phrase “a speckle motion” here, it is unclear whether or not the claimed “a speckle motion” which is caused by laser speckle shifts is the same speckle motion as “laser speckle motion” in claim 1, or if these are two different types of speckle motion. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the speckle motion in claim 4 to be the same as the laser speckle motion in claim 1. .
As for claim 4, the claim recites the phrase “calculate an applied force” in line 8 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 4 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 4 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 1, or if claim 4 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 1. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 4 to be the same as the applied force in claim 1.
As for claim 5, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 3 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 5 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 1, or if claim 5 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 1. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 5 to be the same as the applied force in claim 1.
As for claim 5, the claim recites the phrase “a speckle motion” in lines 3-4 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, recites the limitation “laser speckle motion”. Because of the use of the phrase “a speckle motion” here, it is unclear whether or not the claimed “a speckle motion” is the same speckle motion as “laser speckle motion” in claim 1, or if these are two different types of speckle motion. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the speckle motion in claim 5 to be the same as the laser speckle motion in claim 1.
As for claim 6, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 3 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 6 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 6 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 1, or if claim 6 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 1. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 6 to be the same as the applied force in claim 1.
As for claim 7, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 3 of the claim. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 7 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 7 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 1, or if claim 7 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 1. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 7 to be the same as the applied force in claim 1.
As for claim 13, the claim recites the phrase “wherein the laser speckle shifts define a speckle motion” in lines 3-4 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 13 depends, recites the limitation “laser speckle motion”. Because of the use of the phrase “a speckle motion” here, it is unclear whether or not the claimed “a speckle motion” which is caused by laser speckle shifts is the same speckle motion as “laser speckle motion” in claim 10, or if these are two different types of speckle motion. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the speckle motion in claim 13 to be the same as the laser speckle motion in claim 10.
As for claim 13, the claim recites the phrase “calculate an applied force” in line 6 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 13 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 13 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 10, or if claim 13 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 10. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 13 to be the same as the applied force in claim 10.
As for claim 14, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 1 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 14 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 14 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 10, or if claim 14 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 10. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 14 to be the same as the applied force in claim 10.
As for claim 14, the claim recites the phrase “a speckle motion” in line 2 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 14 depends, recites the limitation “laser speckle motion”. Because of the use of the phrase “a speckle motion” here, it is unclear whether or not the claimed “a speckle motion” is the same speckle motion as “laser speckle motion” in claim 10, or if these are two different types of speckle motion. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the speckle motion in claim 14 to be the same as the laser speckle motion in claim 10.
As for claim 15, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 1 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 15 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 15 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 10, or if claim 15 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 10. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 15 to be the same as the applied force in claim 10.
As for claim 16, the claim recites the phrase “calculating an applied force” in line 1 of the claim. However, claim 10, the claim on which claim 16 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 16 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 10, or if claim 16 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 10. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 16 to be the same as the applied force in claim 10.
As for claim 20, the claim recites the phrase “wherein the laser speckle shifts define a speckle motion” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, claim 19, the claim on which claim 20 depends, recites the limitation “laser speckle motion”. Because of the use of the phrase “a speckle motion” here, it is unclear whether or not the claimed “a speckle motion” which is caused by laser speckle shifts is the same speckle motion as “laser speckle motion” in claim 19, or if these are two different types of speckle motion. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the speckle motion in claim 20 to be the same as the laser speckle motion in claim 19.
As for claim 20, the claim recites the phrase “calculate an applied force” in line 8 of the claim. However, claim 19, the claim on which claim 20 depends, recites “determining an applied force”. As a result, it is unclear whether or not the applied force calculated in claim 20 is the same as the applied force that is determined in claim 19, or if claim 20 is calculating an additional applied force on top of the applied force already determined in claim 19. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the applied force in claim 20 to be the same as the applied force in claim 19.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (2013/0250278).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Zhao (Figs. 1 and 7) discloses a non-contact force sensing system (claim 1), a method of non-contact force sensing (claim 10), and a non-transitory machine readable medium containing processor instructions for non-contact force sensing (claim 19 – see paragraph 0061 which discloses one or more processors, e.g. a computer, programmed to carry out the operation) comprising a laser source 14a that illuminates a surface (strain area 11a of object 11) with a laser (see paragraphs 0030 and 0031 describing illumination of the surface with light from laser 14a); a camera 16a that captures video comprising a plurality of images of the surface (paragraph 0036 discloses that camera 16a is a CCD camera that has image capture speeds of 20 or 100 frames per second as nonlimiting examples; this would be equivalent to the claimed video, as a video is a sequence of images); a set of one or more processors (see paragraph 0061 as noted above) and a non-transitory machine readable medium containing processor instructions for non-contact force sensing, wherein execution of the instructions by the set of processors causes the set of processors to perform a process (see paragraph 0061 as disclosed above) that comprises analyzing the plurality of images of the video to determine laser speckle motion due to surface deformations of the surface (see paragraphs 0053 and 0054, which disclose obtaining first images on the surface of an object to capture a speckle image at a first time, and then, in order to perform strain calculation, obtains second images at a different time period for when the object is under a different stress condition than when the first images are obtained, and paragraph 0059 discloses comparing the first speckle image to the second speckle image to extract displacement of the areas from changes in the speckle images; this would be represented by speckle motion; see also Fig. 7); and determining an applied force on the surface based on the analysis (see paragraphs 0059 and 0060, as the comparison of the images allows for determination of surface strain, which is the equivalent to an applied force on the surface; in particular, from paragraph 0060, “In certain embodiments, determining the surface strain of an object can further include converting the image motion in the units of pixels measured by an imaging device to the corresponding actual object motion.”).
As for claims 2 and 11, Zhao discloses that the laser source is in a focused mode, where in the focused mode, the laser light remains as a bright dot with concentrated energy (see paragraphs 0028 and 0030; the laser in combination with a lens emits collimated laser light of 10 mm in diameter towards the object with good laser pointing stability).
As for claims 5 and 14, Zhao discloses calculating the applied force based on linearly correlating the speckle motion with the force (see Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0059 and 0060, which discloses determining the surface strain of an object via the displacement of areas 72 and 73 represented by ΔA and ΔB as seen in Fig. 7).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (2013/0250278) in view of Oberlin et al (WO 2021/142138).
As for claims 4, 13, and 20, Zhao discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, but fails to disclose calculating distance of laser speckle shifts between adjacent images of the plurality of image as a laser speckle velocity (LSV), wherein the laser speckle shifts define the speckle motion; computing an integral of LSV (ILSV) as an indicator signal; and calculating the applied force using the ILSV.
Oberlin, while being concerned with measuring deformation and force applied to a tissue rather than in an industrial application similar to Zhao, is concerned with a similar problem to the claimed invention of enabling tactile feedback for robots in response to deformation of the tissue being measured (see paragraph 0002). In that light, Oberlin discloses, in paragraph 0065, “obtaining a scalar optical flow reading, wherein the scalar optical flow reading corresponds to one or more laser speckle signals; using said scalar optical flow reading to determine a pixel-wise motion magnitude estimate for a tissue region (these two steps are seen to equate to the calculating distance process or step in the claims); and integrating said pixel -wise motion magnitude estimate over time and space to track a deformation of the tissue region (this step is seen to equate to the computing of the integral and calculating the applied force).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the applied force in Zhao by calculating distance of laser speckle shifts between adjacent images of the plurality of image as a laser speckle velocity (LSV), wherein the laser speckle shifts define the speckle motion; computing an integral of LSV (ILSV) as an indicator signal; and calculating the applied force using the ILSV as taught by Oberlin, the motivation being that knowing the applied force via the calculations disclosed by Oberlin assist with enhanced tactile feedback which is critical information for robotic applications (see paragraph 0002 of Oberlin).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (2013/0250278) in view of Ellis et al (2017/0074733).
As for claims 6 and 15, Zhao discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 10, but fails to disclose calculating the applied force based on a distance from the surface to the camera.
Ellis, in a surface force measuring apparatus and method, discloses (Fig. 1) using a pair of distances to determine the applied force onto the surface of a cantilever 106. Ellis makes this measurement by shining light 108 from laser 104 through a lens 102; part of the light reflects off of the surface of the lens, and the rest transmits through the lens as light 112 and reflects off of the surface of the cantilever. This light is detected by camera 116. Ellis uses the distance h between the lens and the surface of the cantilever and the distance d which is the deflection of the cantilever, and the information between those two distances is converted to be a force applied to the cantilever (see paragraphs 0008 and 0028). As the deflection distance of the cantilever is disclosed by Ellis to be more relevant to the calculation of the force being exerted (see paragraph 0028), the examiner considers that it would be obvious to extend the teachings of Ellis to reflect the change in distance between the camera and the surface as a result of an applied force to be able to be used to determine the force exerted on the cantilever.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the applied force on the object based on a distance from the surface to the camera in Zhao as suggested by Ellis, the motivation being that, using a reference to a known position (such as an initial distance between the camera and the surface of the object being measured), one can calculate the amount of force and the direction the force is applied based on whether or not the measured distance between the camera and the object increases or decreases (see paragraph 0028 of Ellis).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (2013/0250278) in view of “The Engineering ToolBox”, hereinafter referred to as TETB.
As for claims 7 and 16, Zhao discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 10, but while Zhao discloses speckle motion as discussed above regarding claims 5 and 14, Zhao fails to disclose calculating the applied force based on a second moment of area using the equation found in the claim, with the speckle motion being proportional to an inverse of a cube of the thickness.
However, as seen in paragraph 0068 of Zhao, in an example of what is being measured, the object is a concrete beam with a rectangular cross section. In that light, calculating force of such an object based on a second moment of area can be done using the equation taught on page 4 of TETB, as the second moment of area is known to be a geometric property of a shape that measures its resistance to bending or twisting. Any speckle motion, therefore, would be proportional to an inverse of a cube of the thickness of the concrete beam.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the applied force by calculating a second moment of area of the object being measured by the device and method of Zhao as taught by TETB, with the speckle motion being proportional to an inverse of a cube of the thickness, the motivation being that a second moment of area is a well known geometric property of a shape to measure its resistance to bending or twisting, with the equation claimed being the equation for a rectangular or plate material, thereby allowing for easy calculation of the force applied to the object based on the object’s shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 18 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:
As to claims 3 and 12, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claims 1 and 10, further comprising, among other essential features, analyzing the plurality of images of the video to estimate flow displacement across fixed timeframes to obtain a correlated metric to flow velocity, wherein the flow displacement is converted to the flow velocity through a framerate-dependent scale factor, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
While Zhao discloses a framerate at which the video is captured by the camera in paragraph 0036 as discussed above regarding claims 1 and 10, Zhao, and the rest of the prior art of record, fails to disclose or render obvious using the frame rate to convert flow displacement into flow velocity through a framerate dependent scale factor as set forth in claims 3 and 12.
As to claims 8 and 17, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitations of claims 1 and 10, further comprising, among other essential features, determining a stiffness of the surface based on the laser speckle motion, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
While Zhao discloses using laser speckle motion to determine an applied force to the surface as disclosed above regarding claims 1 and 10, Zhao and the rest of the prior art of record does not appear to disclose or render obvious using the laser speckle motion to also determine a stiffness of the surface being measured.
As to claims 9 and 18, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claims 1 and 10, wherein the surface is a type of surface from a plurality of different types of surfaces such that for a particular surface with a particular physical configuration, there is a mapping that is learned from an estimated average speckle velocity to an instantaneous applied surface pressure, where the speckle velocity estimate is an average projected length of vectors within an image frame towards an estimated center, for a given time frame that provides a signed measure for velocity, wherein a cumulative sum of the estimated velocity over time is directly related to an instantaneous applied force, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
While Zhao discloses using laser speckle motion to determine an applied force to the surface as disclosed above regarding claims 1 and 10, Zhao and the rest of the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the specific estimation of velocity and its relation to an instantaneous applied surface pressure or applied force as set forth in the above claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 6,097,477 to Sarrafzadeh-Khoee discloses a laser speckle strain and deformation sensor to indicate strain and deformation of an object (see abstract);
US Pats. 6,128,082 and 6,188,482 to Cloud disclose an electronic speckle pattern interferometer to measure displacement deformation, motion, or strain of an object (see abstract);
US 2014/0132761 to Shih et al. discloses laser speckle photography in order to determine surface tampering (see abstract);
“A Review of Computer Vision-Based Structural Deformation Monitoring in Field Environments” by Zhuang et al. discloses collecting video images that are then analyzed to determine structural deformation (see section 2, System Composition);
“Dense Pixel-wise Micro-motion Estimation of Object Surface by using Low Dimensional Embedding of Laser Speckle Pattern” by Sagawa et al. discloses using a speckle pattern to estimate micro-motion of an object that can be used, in part, to ascertain deformation of the object (see abstract and page 4); and
“Evaluation of a novel vide- and laser-based displacement sensor prototype for civil infrastructure applications” by Brown et al. discloses using a video-based displacement prototype sensor to monitor displacements of structures in order to monitor structural health (see abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights