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 .
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.
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: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire” “a fitting and reconstruction unit” “a simulation unit configured to perform” “a quality inspection unit configured to perform” “a stitching unit configured to stitch” “a preprocessing unit” “a verification unit configured to verify” “simulation unit to continue simulation” “the fitting and reconstruction unit is specifically configured to perform” in claims 18, 19, 21, & 22.
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.
Applicant teaches the units set forth in the above embodiments may be specifically implemented by computer chips or entities, or by products with certain functions. A typical implementation device is a computer device. Specifically, the computer device may be, for example, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a cellular phone, a camera phone, an intelligent phone, a personal digital assistant, a media player, a navigation device, an email device, a game console, a tablet computer, a wearable device or any combination thereof (0192).
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by paper of TAMARA ADERNEUER, “Surface topology and functionality of freeform microlens arrays”, 15 February 2021 hereafter Aderneuer.
With respect to claim 1, Aderneuer teaches an optical element inspection method, comprising:
collecting point cloud data of an optical element under inspection (fig 3, point cloud data);
performing fitting “higher fitting accuracy” and reconstruction “divided in small pieces” (pg. 5035, ¶ 2, lines 20-25) (fig 3, segmentation & NURBS) according to the point cloud data to obtain freeform surface data (fig 3, solid object);
performing simulation “computational model for optical simulations” (pg. 5034, ¶ 3, lines 4-5) calculation on the freeform surface data to obtain a virtual image tested pattern (fig 3, ray tracing); and
performing quality inspection “optical performance” according to the virtual image tested pattern “ray-tracing simulations” to obtain a quality inspection result “performance degradation” of the optical element under inspection “manufacturing deviations” (pg. 5034, ¶ 4 & 5).
With respect to claim 2 according to claim 1, Aderneuer teaches the optical element inspection method wherein the collecting point cloud data of the optical element under inspection comprises:
scanning and measuring (fig 3, Surface measurements), by using a three-dimensional imaging technique (fig 3), a surface of the optical element “freeform microstructures” (fig 2, caption) under inspection with a preset scanning area and data volume (fig 3, point cloud data) to obtain the point cloud data.
With respect to claim 18, Aderneuer teaches an optical element inspection system, comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data of an optical element under inspection (fig 3, point cloud data);
a fitting and reconstruction unit configured to perform fitting “higher fitting accuracy” and reconstruction “divided in small pieces” (pg. 5035, ¶ 2, lines 20-25) (fig 3, segmentation & NURBS) according to the point cloud data to obtain freeform surface data (fig 3, solid object);
a simulation unit configured to perform simulation calculation “computational model for optical simulations” (pg. 5034, ¶ 3, lines 4-5) on the freeform surface data to obtain a virtual image tested pattern (fig 3, ray tracing); and
a quality inspection unit configured to perform quality inspection “optical performance” according to the virtual image tested pattern “ray-tracing simulations” to obtain a quality inspection result of the optical element under inspection “manufacturing deviations” (pg. 5034, ¶ 4 & 5).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over paper of TAMARA ADERNEUER, “Surface topology and functionality of freeform microlens arrays”, 15 February 2021 hereafter Aderneuer in view of paper of YuCun Zhang, “A stitching method of radial section line of scanned point cloud data for ring forgings”, 24 April 2019 hereafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 2, Aderneuer does not teach scanning and measuring the surface of the optical element under inspection and/or different areas of the surface of the optical element under inspection for multiple times with different angles to obtain a plurality of groups of point cloud data; and performing data stitching on the plurality of groups of point cloud data to obtain stitched point cloud data
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor as Aderneuer of point cloud data, teaches rotating an object at different angles to provide a plurality of groups of point cloud data, wherein the plurality of groups is stitched together to obtain a stitched point cloud data via software (fig 12) (pg. 970, ¶ 1, lines 1-10). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhang’s software with the Aderneuer’s point cloud data to provide 3D images of an object.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over paper of TAMARA ADERNEUER, “Surface topology and functionality of freeform microlens arrays”, 15 February 2021 hereafter Aderneuer in view of paper of YuCun Zhang, “A stitching method of radial section line of scanned point cloud data for ring forgings”, 24 April 2019 hereafter Zhang in further view of paper of Hamid Ghorbani, “Airfoil profile reconstruction from unorganized noisy point cloud data”, 2021 hereafter Ghorbani.
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, Aderneuer does not teach before the performing fitting and reconstruction according to the point cloud data to obtain the freeform surface data, the method further comprises:
preprocessing the point cloud data to obtain preprocessed point cloud data.
Ghorbani, in the same field of endeavor as Aderneuer of point cloud data, teaches point cloud data of a freeform surface is preprocessed (fig 1, b) before fitting (fig 1, f) and reconstruction (fig 1, d-e) (fig 1, caption) (pg. 741, col 1, ¶ 2, lines 1-5), wherein preprocessing includes smoothing and outlier removal. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to preprocess the combination’s point cloud data in order to remove incorrect cloud points for a more accurate virtual image of the freeform surface.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over paper of TAMARA ADERNEUER, “Surface topology and functionality of freeform microlens arrays”, 15 February 2021 hereafter Aderneuer in further view of Chen CN 105241406.
With respect to claim 17 according to claim 1, Aderneuer teaches performing quality inspection “optical performance” according to the virtual image tested pattern “ray-tracing simulations” to obtain the quality inspection result of the optical element under inspection comprises “manufacturing deviations” (pg. 5034, ¶ 4 & 5):
Aderneuer does not teach comparing the virtual image tested pattern with a standard virtual image pattern to determine the quality inspection result.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor as Aderneuer of point cloud data, teaches comparing a virtual image and a standard virtual image, wherein a size difference i.e. data error is obtained for a detection result (abstract). Chen further teaches this effectively improves the construction quality of the three-dimensional shape and provides data foundation for making an acceptance criterion. Examiner notes one of ordinary skill would understand the data error may indicate poor quality based upon the standard virtual image. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chen’s model with the combination’s point cloud data to provide quality control for the optical element under test.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMARA ADERNEUER, “Surface topology and functionality of freeform microlens arrays”, 15 February 2021 hereafter Aderneuer in view of YuCun Zhang, “A stitching method of radial section line of scanned point cloud data for ring forgings”, November 2019 hereafter Zhang.
With respect to claim 19 according to claim 18, Aderneuer teaches the optical element inspection system wherein the acquisition unit is specifically configured to scan and measure (fig 3, Surface measurements), by using a three-dimensional imaging technique (fig 3), a surface of the optical element “freeform microstructures” (fig 2, caption) under inspection with a preset scanning area and data volume (fig 3, point cloud data) to obtain the point cloud data.
Aderneuer does not teach the acquisition unit is further configured to scan and measure the surface of the optical
element under inspection and/or different areas of the surface of the optical element under inspection for multiple times with different angles to obtain a plurality of groups of point cloud data.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor as Aderneuer of point cloud data, teaches rotating an object at different angles to provide a plurality of groups of point cloud data, wherein the plurality of groups is stitched together to obtain a stitched point cloud data via software (fig 12) (pg. 970, ¶ 1, lines 1-10). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zhang’s software with the Aderneuer’s point cloud data to provide 3D images of an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-15, 21, 22, & 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “performing fitting and reconstruction on a freeform surface following preset surface fitting parameters according to the point cloud data through preset design software to obtain the freeform surface data”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “verifying the freeform surface data according to a preset verification strategy; and if the verification is successful, continuing the step of performing simulation calculation on the freeform surface data to obtain the virtual image tested pattern”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the simulation input data comprises a position and a preset pattern of an image generation unit, a camera distribution position, a mirror group, a rotation mechanism and a rotation angle, a size and a position of a virtual image plane;
the performing simulation calculation on the freeform surface data according to preset simulation input data by preset simulation software, to obtain the virtual image tested pattern comprises: using a light point on the preset pattern of the image generation unit, according to the principle of light reflection and refraction, light of the light point is projected from the position of the image”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “determining the quality inspection result according to the evaluation parameter corresponding to each evaluation index and a preset evaluation criterion corresponding to each evaluation index wherein the evaluation index comprises at least one selected from a horizontal straightness, a vertical straightness, a horizontal ghosting, a vertical ghosting, an image rotation, a gravity center deviation, a graphic tilt, a trapezoid degree, a zoom ratio, an image brightness, an image color, a binocular horizontal parallax, a binocular vertical parallax, a virtual image plane dynamic distortion and an eye box plane dynamic distortion”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15.
As to claim 21, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a preprocessing unit configured to preprocess the point cloud data to obtain preprocessed point cloud data; and
a verification unit configured to verify the freeform surface data according to a preset verification strategy; and if the verification is successful, trigger the simulation unit to continue simulation calculation on the freeform surface data to obtain the virtual image tested pattern”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 21.
As to claim 22, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the quality inspection unit is specifically configured to perform calculation on the virtual image tested pattern through a preset evaluation function corresponding to each evaluation index, to obtain an evaluation parameter corresponding to each evaluation index; and determine the quality inspection result according to the evaluation parameter corresponding to each evaluation index and a preset evaluation criterion corresponding to each evaluation index; and
the quality inspection unit is specifically configured to compare the virtual image tested pattern with a standard virtual image pattern to determine the quality inspection result”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 22.
As to claim 27, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “secondary
image deviation of window glass, an optical distortion of window glass, a wedge angle or a head-up display image quality of window glass is inspected according to an optical element inspection method, wherein the optical element inspection method comprises: collecting point cloud data of an optical element under inspection; performing fitting and reconstruction according to the point cloud data to obtain freeform surface data”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 27.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights