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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 16-20 drawn to a substrate treating apparatus in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected laser light detecting unit, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/26/2026
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 10-15 are currently withdrawn.
Claim Objections
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 1, 6, and 16 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “wherein the home port detects a characteristic of the laser light from the laser light irradiated by the laser unit”. As currently written, it is unclear what structural elements of the home port of the invention are capable of achieving laser light characteristic detection. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation to refer to the home port having a measurement member (such as the power and/or profile measuring member similar to the limitations of claim 3 and 17) that are capable of detecting a characteristic of laser light.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependence upon claim 1, and claims 17-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence upon claim 20.
Clam 6 recites the limitations “the upper surface” and “the lower surface”. As currently written, is it unclear if “the upper surface” refers to the upper surface of the housing previously mentioned in claim 6, or if “the upper surface” refers to the upper surface of the light splitting member previously mentioned in claim 5. Similarly, is it unclear if “the lower surface” refers to the upper surface of the housing previously mentioned in claim 6, or if “the lower surface” refers to the lower surface of the light splitting member previously mentioned in claim 5. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the upper surface” to refer to “the upper surface of the light splitting member”, and “the lower surface” to refer to “the lower surface of the light splitting member”.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependence upon claim 6.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200036145 A, using attached English machine translation), in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A, using attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 2, [0032], process chamber 260), comprising:
a support unit is configured to support and rotate a substrate in a treatment space (Fig. 2, [0034], support member 340 supports substrate W during the process and rotates substrate W);
a liquid supply unit is configured to supply a liquid to the substrate supported by the support unit (Fig. 2, [0039], liquid supply unit 380 sprays processing liquid onto substrate W);
a laser unit including a laser irradiation unit which irradiates laser light to the substrate supported by the support unit (Fig. 2, [0043], laser unit 900 irradiates laser to substrate W);
a standby position in which the laser unit waits (Fig. 2, [0049], laser unit 900 is movable to a process position and a standby position where the standby position is where the laser unit 930 is out of the process position); and
a moving unit for moving the laser unit between a process position in which the laser light is irradiated to the substrate and the standby position (Fig. 2, [0049], laser unit 900 is movable between a process position and standby port).
Kim fails to teach a home port providing a standby position in which the laser unit waits,
wherein the home port detects a characteristic of the laser light from the laser light irradiated by the laser unit.
However, Han teaches a home port providing a standby position in which the laser unit waits (Han, Fig. 4, [0042], home port 500 where irradiation member 410 is positioned before or after substrate processing),
wherein the home port detects a characteristic of the laser light from the laser light irradiated by the laser unit (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 that measures light intensity).
Han is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of substrate processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Kim as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200036145 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A) as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Chang (US 20190113384 A1).
The limitations of claim 1 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Kim fails to teach wherein the characteristic of the laser light includes a focal distribution of the laser light and power of the laser light.
However, Han teaches wherein the characteristic of the laser light includes intensity of the laser light (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 that measures light intensity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Kim as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Modified Kim fails to teach wherein the characteristic of the laser light includes a focal distribution of the laser light and power of the laser light.
However, Chang teaches wherein the characteristic of the laser light includes a focal distribution of the laser light (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light splitting element 132 splits beam 610 into beam 611’ and beam 613, where light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]).
Chang is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of laser beam technology. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the beam splitting element and light-sensing element in the manner taught by Chang into the apparatus of modified Kim as doing so would allow one to measure additional characteristics of the beam such as the beam diameter (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
The combination of Chang and Han would allow one to calculate the power of the beam using the mathematical relationship of Power = Intensity x Cross Section Area of the beam, where the intensity is given by the measurement member of Han (Han, [0043]) and the area of the beam can be calculated via the beam diameter measurements of the light-sensing element of Chang (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim fails to teach wherein the home port includes:
a housing having an inner space;
a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring the focal distribution of the laser light;
a power measuring member installed in the housing and measuring the power of the laser light; and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
However, Han teaches wherein the home port (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500) includes:
a housing having an inner space (Han, Fig. 4, [002], waiting space 512b of body 510); and
a power measuring member installed in the housing and measuring the power of the laser light (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 that measures light intensity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Kim as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Modified Kim fails to teach a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring the focal distribution of the laser light; and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
However, Chang teaches a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring the focal distribution of the laser light (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’ perpendicular to beam 610, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]); and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light splitting element 132 splits beam 610 into beam 611’ that runs perpendicular to beam 610, and beam 613 which continues in the same direction as beam 610).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the beam splitting element and light-sensing element in the manner taught by Chang into the apparatus of modified Kim as doing so would allow one to measure additional characteristics of the beam such as the beam diameter (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
The combination of Chang and Han would allow one to calculate the power of the beam using the mathematical relationship of Power = Intensity x Cross Section Area of the beam, where the intensity is given by the measurement member of Han (Han, [0043]) and the area of the beam can be calculated via the beam diameter measurements of the light-sensing element of Chang (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200036145 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A) and Chang (US 20190113384 A1), as applied in claims 2-3, and further in view of Saracco (US 20190253678 A1).
The limitations of claims 2-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim fails to teach wherein a surface of the light splitting member facing the power measuring member is anti-reflectively coated.
However, Saracco teaches wherein a surface of the light splitting member facing the power measuring member is anti-reflectively coated (Saracco, Fig. 4, [0047]-[0049], surface of beam splitter 406 facing photodiode 408 has polarizing component 410 on it which provides an anti-reflective effect, where photodiode 408 is used for power measurement).
Saracco is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of laser beam technology. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the polarizing component of Saracco onto the surface of the light splitting element of modified Kim facing the power measurement device as doing so would facilitate improved consistency in the percentage of laser light directed into the power measurement device, thereby reducing variation in power measurement due to changes in polarization in the light source (Saracco, [0048]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200036145 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A) and Chang (US 20190113384 A1), as applied in claims 2-3, and further in view of Matsushita (US 20210333148 A1).
The limitations of claims 2-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim fails to teach a lifting member installed at a lower end of the home port to move the housing.
However, Matsushita teaches a lifting member installed at a lower end of the home port to move the housing (Matsushita, Fig. 1, [0037], elevating mechanism 34 lifts measurement apparatus 1).
Matsushita is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of laser beam technology. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the elevating mechanism onto the home port of modified Kim as doing so would allow one to change the measurement optical path length of the measurement light to a desired values or values (Matsushita, [0037]-[0038]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20200036145 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A) and Chang (US 20190113384 A1), as applied in claims 2-3, and further in view of Iyechika (US 20210233787 A1).
The limitations of claims 2-3 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim fails to teach wherein the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light.
However, Iyechika teaches wherein the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light (Iyechika, Fig. 2, [0041], optical filter 25 is present between CCD imaging device 22 and the reflected laser beam).
Iyechika is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of laser beam technology. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the optical filter as taught by Iyechika into the apparatus of modified Kim as doing so would allow one to not allow any light of wavelength other than that of the laser beam into the CCD, thereby preventing surrounding sources of other light from causing inaccurate measurements (Iyechika, [0041]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (KR 20150136216 A, using attached English machine translation), in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A, using attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 16, Heo teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a mask (Heo, Fig. 3, [0025], processing apparatus 60 which can be used to process a photomask substrate) including a plurality of cells, the substrate treating apparatus comprising:
a housing having a treatment space (Heo, Fig. 3, [0043], processing container 100 provides a processing space);
a support unit is configured to support and rotate a mask in the treatment space (Heo, Fig. 3, [0043], support unit 200 supports and rotates the substrate W in the processing space);
a liquid supply unit is configured to supply a liquid to the mask supported by the support unit (Heo, Fig. 3, [0054], liquid supply member 300 discharges liquid to substrate W);
a laser unit including a laser irradiation unit which irradiates laser light to the mask supported by the support unit (Heo, Fig. 3, [0071], laser member 910 heats substrate W in the process position and is movable by driver 920 to a process position and a standby position located outside of the processing container 100);
a standby position in which the laser unit waits (Heo, Fig. 3, [0071], laser member 910 is movable by driver 920 to a standby position located outside of the processing container 100); and
a moving unit for moving the laser unit between a process position at which the laser light is irradiated to the mask and the standby position (Heo, Fig. 3, [0071], laser member 910 heats substrate W in the process position and is movable by driver 920 to a process position and a standby position located outside of the processing container 100).
Heo fails to teach a home port providing a standby position in which the laser unit waits;
wherein the home port detects a characteristic of the laser light from the laser light irradiated by the laser unit.
However, Han teaches a home port providing a standby position in which the laser unit waits (Han, Fig. 4, [0042], home port 500 where irradiation member 410 is positioned before or after substrate processing);
wherein the home port detects a characteristic of the laser light from the laser light irradiated by the laser unit (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 that measures light intensity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Heo as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (KR 20150136216 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A), as applied in claim 16, and further in view of Chang (US 20190113384 A1).
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Heo fails to teach wherein the home port includes:
a housing having an inner space;
a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring a focal distribution among characteristics of the laser light;
a power measuring member installed in the housing and measuring power among the characteristics of the laser light; and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
However, Han teaches wherein the home port includes:
a housing having an inner space (Han, Fig. 4, [002], waiting space 512b of body 510); and
a power measuring member installed in the housing and measuring power among the characteristics of the laser light (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 that measures light intensity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Heo as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Modified Heo fails to teach a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring a focal distribution among characteristics of the laser light; and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
However, Chang teaches a profile measuring member installed in the housing and measuring a focal distribution among characteristics of the laser light (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’ perpendicular to beam 610, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]); and
a light splitting member for splitting the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light splitting element 132 splits beam 610 into beam 611’ that runs perpendicular to beam 610, and beam 613 which continues in the same direction as beam 610).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the beam splitting element and light-sensing element in the manner taught by Chang into the apparatus of modified Heo as doing so would allow one to measure additional characteristics of the beam such as the beam diameter (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
The combination of Chang and Han would allow one to calculate the power of the beam using the mathematical relationship of Power = Intensity x Cross Section Area of the beam, where the intensity is given by the measurement member of Han (Han, [0043]) and the area of the beam can be calculated via the beam diameter measurements of the light-sensing element of Chang (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Heo fails to teach wherein the profile measuring member is installed on a side wall of the housing,
the power measuring member is installed on a bottom wall of the housing, and
the light splitting member is disposed in the inner space of the housing.
However, Han teaches wherein the power measuring member is installed on a bottom wall of the housing (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 at bottom of home port 500 that measures light intensity in the incident direction of the light transmittance).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the home port and measurement member of Han into the standby position of the apparatus of Heo as doing so would enable one to measure characteristics of the irradiation member, such as intensity, and therefore provide data to determine if the measured value is within a desired range (Han, [0043]).
Modified Kim fails to teach wherein the profile measuring member is installed on a side wall of the housing, and
the light splitting member is disposed in the inner space of the housing.
However, Chang teaches wherein the profile measuring member is installed on a side wall of the housing (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’ perpendicular to beam 610, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]), and
the light splitting member is disposed in the inner space of the housing (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light splitting element 132 splits beam 610 into beam 611’ that runs perpendicular to beam 610, and beam 613 which continues in the same direction as beam 610).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the beam splitting element and light-sensing element in the manner taught by Chang into the apparatus of modified Heo as doing so would allow one to measure additional characteristics of the beam such as the beam diameter (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
The combination of Chang and Han would allow one to calculate the power of the beam using the mathematical relationship of Power = Intensity x Cross Section Area of the beam, where the intensity is given by the measurement member of Han (Han, [0043]) and the area of the beam can be calculated via the beam diameter measurements of the light-sensing element of Chang (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo (KR 20150136216 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A), as applied in claim 16, and further in view of Chang (US 20190113384 A1), Matsushita (US 20210333148 A1), and Iyechika (US 20210233787 A1)
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, modified Heo fails to teach a lifting member installed at a lower end of the home port to move the housing,
wherein the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light.
However, Matsushita teaches a lifting member installed at a lower end of the home port to move the housing (Matsushita, Fig. 1, [0037], elevating mechanism 34 lifts measurement apparatus 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the elevating mechanism onto the home port of modified Kim as doing so would allow one to change the measurement optical path length of the measurement light to a desired values or values (Matsushita, [0037]-[0038]).
Modified Heo fails to teach wherein the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light.
However, Chang teaches the profile measuring member (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’ perpendicular to beam 610, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the beam splitting element and light-sensing element in the manner taught by Chang into the apparatus of modified Heo as doing so would allow one to measure additional characteristics of the beam such as the beam diameter (Chang, [0015]-[0016]).
Modified Kim fails to teach an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light.
However, Iyechika teaches an optical filter for filtering a specific wavelength of the laser light (Iyechika, Fig. 2, [0041], optical filter 25 is present between CCD imaging device 22 and the reflected laser beam).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the optical filter as taught by Iyechika into the apparatus of modified Heo as doing so would allow one to not allow any light of wavelength other than that of the laser beam into the CCD, thereby preventing surrounding sources of other light from causing inaccurate measurements (Iyechika, [0041]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations “…an upper surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a first angle with respect to the ground, and a lower surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a second angle with respect to the ground, and the second angle is greater than the first angle” in the context of the other limitations of the claim.
The combination of Kim (KR 20200036145 A) in view of Han (KR 20170137244 A) and Chang (US 20190113384 A1) teach wherein the profile measuring member is installed on a side wall of the housing (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light-sensing element 122 receives beam 611’ perpendicular to beam 610, and where light-sensing element 122 may be charge-coupled CCD device that can measure beam optical properties such as beam diameter, [0015]-[0016]), the power measuring member is installed on a bottom wall of the housing (Han, Fig. 4, [0043], home port 500 has measurement member 540 at bottom of home port 500 that measures light intensity in the incident direction of the light transmittance), and the light splitting member is disposed in the inner space of the housing (Chang, Fig. 5, [0023], light splitting element 132 splits beam 610 into beam 611’ that runs perpendicular to beam 610, and beam 613 which continues in the same direction as beam 610).
While Chang teaches the light splitting member has within an inclined element that splits the beam, the light splitting member is disclosed as a cube beam splitter; therefore both the upper and lower surface are flat and perpendicular to the ground, and at best the angles of the internal inclined element are equal. Similarly, reference Seung (KR 20210069992 A) teaches a beam splitter that directs beams to a power measuring member and a profile measuring member (Seung, Fig. 2, [0053], beam splitter 1211, profile measuring unit 1214, and output measuring unit 1212), and the beam splitter has both upper and lower surface inclined to ground, but the angles of incline are the same. Reference Scaggs (US 20110249256 A1) teaches a dove prism beam splitter that diverts part of the beam to a CCD element to measure beam profile (Scaggs, Fig. 1, [0043], prism 28 and CCD 30), where the upper and lower surface of the prism are inclined with respect to the ground, but is silent as to whether the angles of the inclined surfaces are different.
Search of prior relevant art did not identify any teachings of “…an upper surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a first angle with respect to the ground, and a lower surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a second angle with respect to the ground, and the second angle is greater than the first angle” in the context of the other limitations of the claim. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, similarly to claim 5, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation “the upper surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a first angle with respect to the ground, and the lower surface of the light splitting member is formed to be inclined upwardly at a second angle with respect to the ground, the second angle is greater than the first angle” in the context of the other limitations of the claim. The statements of allowability disclosed above regarding claim 5 apply to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seung (KR 20210069992 A) teaches a beam splitter that directs beams to a power measuring member and a profile measuring member.
Scaggs (US 20110249256 A1) teaches a dove prism beam splitter that diverts part of the beam to a CCD element to measure beam profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M SEOANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4612. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/TODD M SEOANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718