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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 04/15/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-11 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-11 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 04/15/2026.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP2021-194022, filed on 11/30/2021, has been filed in this matter.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20140031678 A1), in view of Katzenmeyer (US 11644301 B1), and in further view of Shimizu (US 20220065614 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada discloses:
A laser interferometer comprising:
a laser light source configured to emit first laser light (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], light source unit 801);
an optical coupler configured to receive the first laser light from the laser light source and to split the first laser light into first split light and second split light (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], fiber coupler 803); …
… an optical modulator that includes a resonator a frequency of the first … light incident on the resonator (Yamada, FIG. 1, [0027], “optical intensity modulation element 103 are disposed within the optical resonator 104”) and … the second laser light being incident on the optical coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], fiber coupler 803);
a second collimator configured to collimate the second split light (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0129], “A sample 814 (object to be inspected) and collimator lenses 820 and 821 are also illustrated in FIG. 8”) and emit second collimated light toward an object to be measured, (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0129], sample 814 (object to be inspected)) third laser light being generated by reflecting the second collimated light at the object (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0129], “A sample 814 (object to be inspected) and collimator lenses 820 and 821 are also illustrated in FIG. 8”), the third laser light including a sample signal (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], “an irradiation spot scanning mirror 807 that form a sample measurement portion are also connected in the apparatus”), the third laser light being incident on the optical coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], fiber coupler 803);
a photodetector (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], photo-detector 809) configured to receive combined light from the optical coupler, the combined light being formed by combining the second laser light and the third laser light via the optical coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], fiber coupler 803);
a first optical wiring that optically couples the laser light source and the optical coupler and that is configured to cause the first laser light emitted from the laser light source to be incident on the optical coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], irradiation fiber 810);
a second optical wiring that optically couples the photodetector and the optical coupler and that is configured to cause the combined light split by the optical coupler to be incident on the photodetector (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], light receiving fiber 808); …
… a fourth optical wiring that optically couples the second collimator and the optical coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], inspection light optical path fiber 805); …
Yamada discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a first collimator configured to collimate the first split light and emit first collimated light; …
… receive the first collimated light …
… modulate the first laser collimated light …
However, as cited above, Yamada does implement collimating lenses, most specifically collimator lenses 820 and 821 from FIG. 8, [0129]. Even if collimating lenses are not used in the exact places and manner as claimed, it is clear that Yamada discloses the use of collimating lenses.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with the collimating lenses of Yamada. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of collimating lenses as disclosed by Yamada and how to use them to modify Yamada. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this to do this as a use of a known optical component for a known optical function.
Yamada discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… to generate second laser light including a modulation signal, …
However, Katzenmeyer, in a similar field of endeavor (System And Method Of Phase-locked Fiber Interferometry), discloses:
… to generate second laser light including a modulation signal (Katzenmeyer, FIG. 1, C5, L39, piezoelectric cylinder 105, and C3, L55-61, “In the modulator, a reference beam of light from the light source is phase-modulated so as to produce oscillatory phase modulations that are phase-locked to the oscillatory modulation waveform. From the signal photodetector, an oscillatory detection signal is obtained that is responsive to a combined optical signal comprising the optical data signal and the modulated reference beam”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada with the modulation of Katzenmeyer. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of modulating and comparing signals as disclosed by Katzenmeyer and how to use them to modify Yamada. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this to produce oscillatory phase modulations that are phase-locked to the oscillatory modulation waveform (See Katzenmeyer, C3, L55-61).
The combination of Yamada and Katzenmeyer discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a demodulation circuit configured to demodulate the sample signal from an output signal of the photodetector based on a reference signal; and
an oscillation circuit, using the resonator as a signal source, configured to:
output a drive signal to the resonator, and
output the reference signal to the demodulation circuit.
However, Shimizu, in a similar field of endeavor (Laser Interferometer), discloses:
… a demodulation circuit (Shimizu, FIG. 1, [0032], demodulation circuit 52) configured to demodulate the sample signal from an output signal of the photodetector based on a reference signal (Shimizu, [0127], “the demodulation circuit in the related art can demodulate the sample signal from the light reception signal including a modulated signal modulated by the optical modulator whose modulation frequency does not change”); and
an oscillation circuit, using the resonator as a signal source (Shimizu, [0006], “The oscillation circuit is a circuit that outputs a desired frequency signal by using a signal source such as a quartz crystal resonator as a vibration source”), configured to:
output a drive signal to the resonator (Shimizu, FIG. 3, [0060], “the drive signal S1 output from the oscillation circuit 54 can be used to oscillate the vibrator 30 without amplification”), and
output the reference signal to the demodulation circuit (Shimizu, FIGS. 1 & 2, [0095], “the oscillation circuit 54 outputs the drive signal S1 input to the optical modulator 12 of the optical system 50. Further, the oscillation circuit 54 outputs the reference signal S2 input to the demodulation circuit 52”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Katzenmeyer with the oscillation circuit and demodulator of Shimizu. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of oscillation circuits and demodulators as disclosed by Shimizu and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada and Katzenmeyer. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known means of demodulation based on the reference signal.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, and Yamada further discloses:
… wherein
the optical coupler is an optical fiber type coupler (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], fiber coupler 803), and
the first optical wiring, the second optical wiring, the third optical wiring, and the fourth optical wiring are optical fibers (Yamada, FIG. 8, [0128], “a light receiving fiber 808, a photo-detector 809, and an irradiation fiber 810 that form a light detection portion”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, and Yamada further discloses:
… an optical isolator that is provided between the laser light source and the optical coupler and that is configured to reduce return light traveling from the optical coupler toward the laser light source (Yamada, FIG. 9, [0138], isolator 902).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, and Yamada further discloses:
… a third collimator that is provided between the laser light source and the optical coupler and that is configured to collimate the first laser light (Yamada, FIG. 4A, [0105], collimator 411).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20140031678 A1), in view of Katzenmeyer (US 11644301 B1), in further view of Shimizu (US 20220065614 A1), and in further view of Gorman (US 20200386611 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a movable sensor head unit; and …
However, Gorman, in a similar field of endeavor (PULSED LASER INTERFEROMETER AND MEASURING VIBRATIONAL AMPLITUDE AND VIBRATIONAL PHASE), discloses:
… a movable sensor head unit (Gorman, FIG. 1, [0028], “pathlength reflector 219 disposed on pathlength control stage 218 and in optical communication with pulsed laser 201 and that: receives laser pulses 204 from laser 201; and moves in concert with pathlength control stage 218 to change the optical pathlength of propagation for laser pulses 204”); and
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada and Katzenmeyer with the moveable optical components of Gorman. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of moveable optical components as disclosed by Gorman and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada and Katzenmeyer. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known components in known ways.
The combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Gorman discloses discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a main body, wherein
the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, the first collimator, and the second collimator are provided in the movable sensor head unit.
The placement and housing of components is a result-effective variable. In that, if the components are not placed, housed, and connected properly, the device would not operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “a main body, wherein the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, the first collimator, and the second collimator are provided in the moveable sensor head unit,” since determining the optimum placement and housing of components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Gorman discloses Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a mounting substrate provided in the sensor head unit, wherein
the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, the first collimator, and the second collimator are mounted on the mounting substrate.
The placement and housing of components is a result-effective variable. In that, if the components are not placed, housed, and connected properly, the device would not operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “a mounting substrate provided in the sensor head unit, wherein the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, the first collimator, and the second collimator are mounted on the mounting substrate,” since determining the optimum placement and housing of components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a movable sensor head unit; and …
However, Gorman, in a similar field of endeavor (PULSED LASER INTERFEROMETER AND MEASURING VIBRATIONAL AMPLITUDE AND VIBRATIONAL PHASE), discloses:
… a movable sensor head unit (Gorman, FIG. 1, [0028], “pathlength reflector 219 disposed on pathlength control stage 218 and in optical communication with pulsed laser 201 and that: receives laser pulses 204 from laser 201; and moves in concert with pathlength control stage 218 to change the optical pathlength of propagation for laser pulses 204”); and
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu with the moveable optical components of Gorman. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of moveable optical components as disclosed by Gorman and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known components in known ways.
The combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Gorman discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a main body, wherein
the second collimator is provided in the sensor head unit, and
the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, and the first collimator are provided in the main body.
The placement and housing of components is a result-effective variable. In that, if the components are not placed, housed, and connected properly, the device would not operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “a main body, wherein the second collimator is provided in the sensor head unit, and the laser light source, the optical modulator, the photodetector, the optical coupler, and the first collimator are provided in the main body,” since determining the optimum placement and housing of components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a movable sensor head unit; and …
However, Gorman, in a similar field of endeavor (PULSED LASER INTERFEROMETER AND MEASURING VIBRATIONAL AMPLITUDE AND VIBRATIONAL PHASE), discloses:
… a movable sensor head unit (Gorman, FIG. 1, [0028], “pathlength reflector 219 disposed on pathlength control stage 218 and in optical communication with pulsed laser 201 and that: receives laser pulses 204 from laser 201; and moves in concert with pathlength control stage 218 to change the optical pathlength of propagation for laser pulses 204”); and
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu with the moveable optical components of Gorman. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of moveable optical components as disclosed by Gorman and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known components in known ways.
The combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Gorman discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a main body, wherein
the optical modulator, the first collimator, and the second collimator are provided in the sensor head unit, and
the laser light source, the photodetector, and the optical coupler are provided in the main body.
The placement and housing of components is a result-effective variable. In that, if the components are not placed, housed, and connected properly, the device would not operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s filing date to include “a main body, wherein the optical modulator, the first collimator, and the second collimator are provided in the sensor head unit, and the laser light source, the photodetector, and the optical coupler are provided in the main body,” since determining the optimum placement and housing of components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claims 9-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20140031678 A1) in view of Katzenmeyer (US 11644301 B1), in further view of Shimizu (US 20220065614 A1), and in further view of Swanson (US 5459570 A).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… an optical path length changing unit that is provided between the first collimator and the optical modulator and that is configured to change an optical path length of an optical path along which the first laser light emitted from the first collimator propagates.
However, Swanson, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And Apparatus For Performing Optical Measurements), discloses:
… an optical path length changing unit that is provided between the first collimator and the optical modulator and that is configured to change an optical path length of an optical path along which the first laser light emitted from the first collimator propagates (Swanson, C3, L17-26, “The changes in the first optical path are preferably accomplished by reciprocating the mirror or other reference reflector in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical path. A suitable means may be provided for maintaining the reflector in alignment in spite of movement and wobble of the reflector as it is moved. The numerical aperture for the coupling to the sample should also correspond to a depth field equal to a predetermined depthsextent within the sample over which measurements are to be taken”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu with the variable optical path of Swanson. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of variable optical paths as disclosed by Swanson and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Shimizu. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a means to control the optical path (See Swanson, C3, L17-26).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Swanson discloses Claim 9, and Swanson further discloses:
… wherein the optical path length changing unit includes
a movable optical element configured to change the optical path length when the movable optical element moves (Swanson, C3, L17-26, “The changes in the first optical path are preferably accomplished by reciprocating the mirror or other reference reflector in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical path. A suitable means may be provided for maintaining the reflector in alignment in spite of movement and wobble of the reflector as it is moved. The numerical aperture for the coupling to the sample should also correspond to a depth field equal to a predetermined depthsextent within the sample over which measurements are to be taken”); and
a drive unit configured to drive the movable optical element (Examiner understands Swanson to inherently disclose a driver for the movement to get the small movements and changes disclosed).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Swanson with the variable optical path of Swanson. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of variable optical paths as disclosed by Swanson and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, and Swanson. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a means to control the optical path (See Swanson, C3, L17-26).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Swanson discloses Claim 9, and Swanson further discloses:
… wherein the optical path length changing unit includes
a refractive index variable body whose refractive index changes in response to an input of a control signal (Swanson, C3, L17-26, “The changes in the first optical path are preferably accomplished by reciprocating the mirror or other reference reflector in a direction substantially perpendicular to the optical path. A suitable means may be provided for maintaining the reflector in alignment in spite of movement and wobble of the reflector as it is moved. The numerical aperture for the coupling to the sample should also correspond to a depth field equal to a predetermined depthsextent within the sample over which measurements are to be taken”), and
an input unit configured to input the control signal to the refractive index variable body (Examiner understands Swanson to inherently disclose an input unit for the movement to get the small movements and changes disclosed).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Swanson with the variable optical path of Swanson. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of variable optical paths as disclosed by Swanson and how to use them to modify the combination of Yamada, Katzenmeyer, Shimizu, and Swanson. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a means to control the optical path (See Swanson, C3, L17-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights