Optical: systems and elements – Glare or unwanted light reduction – With absorption means
Reexamination Certificate
2001-12-04
2004-12-28
Sugarman, Scott J. (Department: 2873)
Optical: systems and elements
Glare or unwanted light reduction
With absorption means
C359S227000, C359S534000, C359S591000, C359S894000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06834971
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present application relates, in general, to apertures for the control and/or measurement of light.
2. Description of the Related Art
An aperture is an opening through which light energy can pass. An aperture can be thought of as an opening at a selected point in an optical system that determines the size of the bundle of light rays that traverse the system. Virtually all optical systems incorporate one or more apertures. For example, apertures may be used, in various optical systems, to define a field-of-view (e.g., as used in telescopes, microscopes and other imaging optics), define beam convergence/divergence and uniformity (e.g., as used in collimating optics), or control the size of an image (e.g., as used in some reflectance, transmittance, or detector response accessories).
Within optical systems, apertures often appear in what are known in the art as optical “trains”. An optical train is typically used to control and/or measure light, and optical systems typically have at least one, and sometimes several, optical trains. For sake of illustration, an optical train can be treated as having three main components: a light source, a controlling device (e.g., an aperture), and a detector. These components generally are arranged in a serial manner.
With reference now to the figures, and in particular with reference now to
FIG. 1A
, shown in side plan view is an optical train
100
consisting of a light source (e.g., a lamp)
102
, an aperture (e.g., a cylinder drilled in a piece of sheet metal)
104
, and a detector (e.g. a photometer)
106
. Although the aperture
104
, when shown in perspective view (see FIG.
1
B), appears circular in shape, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that apertures can be quite varied in shape (e.g., circular, square, slit(s), star, or other various shapes).
FIG. 1A
represents the “ideal” case, in which it is assumed that the surface
108
facing the light source
102
is totally absorbing of light, and hence that the “signal strength,” or intensity, of the light detected by the detector
106
is solely indicative of the signal strength of the light source
102
. When optical systems are designed analytically, it is most common for the system designers to perform the analytic calculations assuming the idealized case in their calculations. Unfortunately, actual systems rarely tend to approach the idealized case.
Referring now to
FIG. 2
, illustrated is an optical train representative of an actual, as opposed to idealized, related-art system. As shown, in an attempt to approach the idealized case, the surface
108
facing the light source
102
is treated or prepared to be “light absorbing” (e.g., is painted black). However, also as shown, in the related art such preparations often fall short, and instead what happens is that a measurably significant amount of light
200
is reflected back from the surface
108
. Depicted is that a portion of this reflected light is subsequently re-reflected such that it makes its way through the
104
aperture and is thereafter detected by the detector
106
.
Those having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the re-reflected light energy will often tend to give an indication that the light source
102
is more powerful than the light source
102
actually is (indicated in
FIG. 2
by making the triangles representing light energy larger than they appear in FIG.
1
A). Accordingly, such re-reflected light, when considered from the standpoint of measuring the intensity or signal strength of the light source
102
, is essentially “noise.” Those having ordinary skill in the art will also recognize that such noise often clashes with analytical designs and calculations which assumed no, or measurably insignificant, noise. This resulting clash, at best, requires considerable subsequent work to make analytically designed systems function as desired, and, at worst, requires that the analytically designed systems be redesigned with assumptions more close to an actual system such as that depicted in FIG.
2
.
Consequently, it is apparent that a need exists in the art for a method and system which substantially decreases noise due to reflections from one or more surfaces below the level of that manifested in comparably sized and situated related-art systems.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The inventors named herein (“inventors”) have devised a method and system which substantially decrease optical noise below that manifested in related-art systems.
In one implementation, a system includes but is not limited to a low-backscatter aperture structure, where the system can include but is not limited to a camera, an optical communications system, an imaging system, a test system, and a measurement system.
In another implementation, a system includes but is not limited to one or more aperture-ingress-side surfaces; one or more aperture-egress-side surfaces; and the one or more aperture-ingress-side surfaces positioned such that light originating external to at least one of the one or more aperture-ingress-side surfaces is either allowed to enter an aperture ingress or is substantially reflected in a direction such that re-reflection though the aperture ingress is substantially minimized, where the system can include but is not limited to a camera, an optical communications system, an imaging system, a test system, and a measurement system.
The foregoing is a summary and thus contains, by necessity, simplifications, generalizations and omissions of detail; consequently, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the summary is illustrative only and is NOT intended to be in any way limiting. Other aspects, inventive features, and advantages of the devices and/or processes described herein, as defined solely by the claims, will become apparent in the non-limiting detailed description set forth herein
REFERENCES:
patent: 5016995 (1991-05-01), Pullen, V
patent: 5161238 (1992-11-01), Mehmke
patent: 5243464 (1993-09-01), Lauf et al.
patent: 5357101 (1994-10-01), Plesko
patent: 5550367 (1996-08-01), Plesko
patent: 5971551 (1999-10-01), Winston et al.
patent: 6516116 (2003-02-01), Murray et al.
patent: 2001/0030742 (2001-10-01), Kramer et al.
patent: 0994369 (2000-04-01), None
patent: WO 01/13158 (2001-02-01), None
Ryer, A., “Light Mearsurement Handbook” International Light 1998, pp. 1-64.
Mora John C.
Rash Clarence E.
Arwine Elizabeth
Collins Darryl J.
Sugarman Scott J.
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of
LandOfFree
Low-backscatter aperture structure does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Low-backscatter aperture structure, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Low-backscatter aperture structure will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3328333