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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on PRO 63/344,527 dated 05/20/2022.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 5, 12-15, and 17-19 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the amplified piezoelectric actuator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 establishes “a first amplified piezoelectric actuator” and every other claim correctly refers back to the “first amplified piezoelectric actuator.” Claim 5 alone states “the sensing gauge is configured to be associated with the amplified piezoelectric actuator.” Since claim 10 later introduces a second actuator it is unclear which actuator claim 5 is attempting to reference. For examination purposes, “the amplified piezoelectric actuator” of claim 5 will be interpreted as “the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.”
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "or other" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 13-15 are rejected for their dependance on claim 12.
Claims 17-19 recite the element "the detector” however there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which claims 17-19 depend, do not establish “a detector.” Claim 16 establishes “a detector” but claims 17-19 do not depend from claim 16. Therefore claims 17-19 are indefinite. For examination purposes, “the detector” of claims 17-19 will be interpreted as the detector as introduced in claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, 12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and further in view of Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina.
Regarding claim 1, Korner teaches, in Fig. 1: an interferometer (“Figure 1 shows an arrangement of the dual-beam interferometer”; [0316]) comprising: one or more optical components configured to receive and/or transmit light (“two roof-edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0318]); and
a first actuator (“disc rotor motor 7”; [0318]) directly or indirectly coupled to at least one of the one or more optical components (“the disc rotor motor 7, which is coupled to a laser interferometric reference system (not shown here) for obtaining the current optical path difference x_g using the paths of the reference beams over the two roof-edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2.”; [0318]), wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to move the at least one optical component (“The roof prism reflectors 5.1 and 5.2 of the two-beam interferometer are rotated around the axis of rotation in order to generate the required optical path difference”; [0318]).
Korner fails to teach: that the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein a position of the at least one optical component is precisely controlled by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and the position of the moving at least one optical component is determined by a voltage applied to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator or by a sensing gauge associated with the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: a first amplified piezoelectric actuator directly or indirectly coupled to at least one of the one or more optical components, wherein the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured to move the at least one optical component (“the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators”; abstract),
and wherein a position of the at least one optical component is precisely controlled by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“piezoelectric actuators (or piezoactuators), used for fine-positioning the mirrors”; page 4801 para 6) and the position of the moving at least one optical component is determined by a voltage applied to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The piezoactuators APA400MML are solid-state long-stroke actuators based on the expansion of the active material and on a mechanism to amplify the displacement (CEDRAT 2013), allowing a maximum displacement of 250 μm at 150 V” ; page 4801 para 6, “The outputs of the capacitive sensors are connected directly to MC900 modules. Such modules convert the capacitance of the sensors measure into a voltage value that is proportional to the measured distance”; page 4801 para 8) or by a sensing gauge associated with the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein a position of the at least one optical component is precisely controlled by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and the position of the moving at least one optical component is determined by a voltage applied to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator or by a sensing gauge associated with the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Regarding claim 2, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 1. Korner further teaches in Fig. 2: wherein the one or more optical components (5.1, 5.2) comprise: an optical source configured to generate light (“1.1 Elongated radiation source”; [0355]);
a first reflector (5.1);
a second reflector (5.2);
a beamsplitter (“beam splitter assembly 3”; [0319]) configured to receive the light (see ray path in Fig. 1), to split the light into a first beam directed to the first reflector and into a second beam directed to the second reflector (“The radiation split at the beam splitter assembly 3 is reflected at the two roof prism reflectors 5.1 and 5.2, and the electromagnetic radiation is recombined at the beam splitter assembly 3”; [0319]), and to receive the first and second beams transmitted from the first and second reflectors, thereby providing a combined beam (“the electromagnetic radiation is recombined at the beam splitter assembly 3”; [0319]), wherein the first actuator (7) is directly or indirectly coupled to the second reflector (“The double roof-edge reflector group 4 is driven by a disc rotor motor 7 with stator 7.1 and disc rotor 7.2”; [0318], “The rotating reflector group 4 therefore consists of two roof edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0319]), and
wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to translate the second reflector (5.2) away from or towards the beamsplitter (“The roof prism reflectors 5.1 and 5.2 of the two-beam interferometer are rotated around the axis of rotation in order to generate the required optical path difference”; [0323], when 5.2 is pivoted around DP the reflector is moved toward or away from the beam splitter 3, see Fig. 1); and
a target (“rasterized matrix detector 18.1”; [0320]) configured to receive the combined beam from the beamsplitter (3) (see beam path of Fig. 1).
Korner fails to teach that the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches the use of amplified piezoelectric actuators to move a mirror: “the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators” (Molina, abstract).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 paras 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner fails to teach: wherein the first amplified piezoelectric actuator comprises an amplified piezoelectric actuator configured to provide a translational movement of the second reflector from about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: wherein the first amplified piezoelectric actuator comprises an amplified piezoelectric actuator configured to provide a translational movement of the second reflector from about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm (“The piezoactuators APA400MML are solid-state long-stroke actuators based on the expansion of the active material and on a mechanism to amplify the displacement (CEDRAT 2013), allowing a maximum displacement of 250 μm at 150 V”; page 4801 para 6).
The Examiner contends that the prior art value from Molina of 250 μm (0.25 mm) for the translational movement of the reflecting element is sufficiently close to the claimed range of “about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm” to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Further, the claimed range recites “about 0.3m to about 5 mm,” and the specification states only that “[t]he term "about" is meant to modify each recited numerical value within the range and sub-ranges” (page 9 lines 1-2 of the spec), without specifying any numerical tolerance, percentage deviation, or other quantitative boundary for the term ‘about’. Having elected to broaden the claim through the use of approximating language rather than reciting a fixed numerical boundary, applicant cannot assert that ‘about 0.3 mm’ excludes a value that differs from the recited endpoint by only 0.05 mm.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 250 μm for translational movement of the reflecting element, calculated from the prior art disclosure, is sufficiently close to the claimed range of “about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm” to render it obvious because 250 μm is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range for “about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm”, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Additionally, see also the first paragraph MPEP 2144.05 which states “In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the first amplified piezoelectric actuator comprises an amplified piezoelectric actuator configured to provide a translational movement of the second reflector from about 0.3 mm to about 5 mm, for the purpose of displacing the reflecting element with the actuator (Molina, page 4801 para 6).
Regarding claim 5, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner fails to teach: the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in a closed-looped manner, and optionally wherein the interferometer further comprises: a sensing gauge configured to determine a position of the second reflector, wherein the sensing gauge is configured to be associated with the amplified piezoelectric actuator; and a circuit configured to employ a signal from the sensing gauge as an input signal for the circuit.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in a closed-looped manner (“the bandwidth of the closed loop system was set beyond 100 Hz in order to reject disturbances up to this frequency”; page 4807 section 5.2),
and optionally wherein the interferometer further comprises:
a sensing gauge (capacitive sensors) configured to determine a position of the second reflector (“In this way the sensors always measure the distance between the upper mirror and the fixed position of the sensor”; page 4801 para 7), wherein
the sensing gauge (“capacitive sensors are MCC10HS ones”; page 4801 para 6) is configured to be associated with the amplified piezoelectric actuator (“high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system”; page 4801 para 2); and
a circuit configured to employ a signal from the sensing gauge as an input signal for the circuit (“The outputs of the capacitive sensors are connected directly to MC900 modules. Such modules convert the capacitance of the sensors measure into a voltage value that is proportional to the measured distance”; page 4801 para 8).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “considering that a typical step size for the scanning mode is of 10 nm, the controller was set to have a noise-signal ratio smaller than 30%, in order to achieve a steady state maximum standard deviation of 3 nm. And, lastly, the bandwidth of the closed loop system was set beyond 100 Hz in order to reject disturbances up to this frequency” (Molina, page 4807 section 5.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in a closed-looped manner, and optionally wherein the interferometer further comprises: a sensing gauge configured to determine a position of the second reflector, wherein the sensing gauge is configured to be associated with the amplified piezoelectric actuator; and a circuit configured to employ a signal from the sensing gauge as an input signal for the circuit, for the purpose of providing a closed loop system in order to reject disturbances (Molina, page 4807 section 5.2).
Regarding claim 6, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner fails to teach: a controller coupled to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, wherein the controller is configured to directly or indirectly transmit a driving signal (e.g., a driving voltage) to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and to optionally receive a signal from a sensing gauge, and optionally wherein the controller is configured to power and control the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: a controller coupled to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“a robust LQG/LTR nanopositioning controllers for the Fabry-Perót system”; page 4809 section 8), wherein the controller is configured to directly or indirectly transmit a driving signal (e.g., a driving voltage) to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The input of the MIMO system are the three piezoactuators voltage inputs, u1, u2 and u3, and the outputs are the measurement of the capacitive sensors, s12, s23, s13, all of them in Volts”; page 4803 section 3.3) and to optionally receive a signal from a sensing gauge (“The outputs of the capacitive sensors are connected directly to MC900 modules. Such modules convert the capacitance of the sensors measure into a voltage value that is proportional to the measured distance”; page 4801 para 8, the controllers input is the capacitive sensors output routed through the MC900 module), and optionally wherein the controller is configured to power and control the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The input of the MIMO system are the three piezoactuators voltage inputs, u1, u2 and u3, and the outputs are the measurement of the capacitive sensors, s12, s23, s13, all of them in Volts”; page 4803 section 3.3, the voltage applied to the piezoelectric actuator is simultaneously both the powering and control/position-setting mechanism for the actuator).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “Such feedback control system is needed to set and control the desired distance between the plates and is the aim of this work to develop different approaches to the design of a successful controller for the BTFI Fabry-Perót system” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which a controller coupled to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, wherein the controller is configured to directly or indirectly transmit a driving signal (e.g., a driving voltage) to the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and to optionally receive a signal from a sensing gauge, and optionally wherein the controller is configured to power and control the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of providing a controller configured to set and control the desired distances (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Regarding claim 10, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner further teaches in Fig. 1: the first reflector is stationary;
or the first reflector (5.1) is moving (“The rotating reflector group 4 therefore consists of two roof edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0139]), wherein the first reflector (5.1) is directly or indirectly coupled to the first actuator (7) (“The double roof-edge reflector group 4 is driven by a disc rotor motor 7 with stator 7.1 and disc rotor 7.2”; [0318], “The rotating reflector group 4 therefore consists of two roof edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0319]) or a second actuator, wherein the first (7) or second actuator is configured to translate the first reflector away from and towards the beamsplitter (“The roof prism reflectors 5.1 and 5.2 of the two-beam interferometer are rotated around the axis of rotation in order to generate the required optical path difference”; [0323], when 5.1 is pivoted around DP the reflector is moved toward or away from the beam splitter 3, see Fig. 1), and
optionally wherein the first reflector moves in a different direction from the second reflector, relative to the beamsplitter.
Korner fails to teach that the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches the use of amplified piezoelectric actuators to move a mirror: “the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators” (Molina, abstract).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 paras 7-8).
Regarding claim 12, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner further teaches in Fig. 1: an arm assembly (“double roof-edge reflector group 4”; [0318]) comprising a surface (planar surface of 4), a pivot point (“pivot point DP”; [0318], and a first outer edge (outer edge surface of 4), wherein the first and second reflectors (5.1 and 5.2) are attached to the arm assembly (“The rotating reflector group 4 therefore consists of two roof edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0139]), wherein a portion of the first outer edge of the arm assembly is directly or indirectly coupled to the first actuator (see Fig. 1 in which outer edge of arm 4 is coupled to motor 7) with a flexure, bearing, or other (“disc rotor motor 7 with stator 7.1 and disc rotor 7.2”; [0318]), and wherein the first actuator (7) is configured to move the arm assembly (4) about the pivot point (DP) (“a rotating double-roof-edge reflector assembly 4, which is designed around the pivot point DP with a high-precision mechanical ball bearing rotary bearing”; [0318]), thereby moving the first and second reflectors (5.1 and 5.2), independently, away from or towards the beamsplitter (3) (“The electromagnetic radiation split at the beam splitter assembly 3 in the two-beam interferometer reaches a rotating double-roof-edge reflector assembly 4, which is designed around the pivot point DP with a high-precision mechanical ball bearing rotary bearing (not shown here) for rotation of a few degrees in the partial range of 360°”; [0318], “The rotating reflector group 4 therefore consists of two roof edge reflectors 5.1 and 5.2”; [0139]).
However, Korner fails to teach the actuator is a amplified piezo electric actuator.
Molina teaches the use of amplified piezoelectric actuators to move a mirror: “the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators” (Molina, abstract).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 paras 7-8).
Regarding claim 15, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 12. Korner further teaches in Fig. 1: wherein the arm assembly (4) comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first and second portions extend away from the pivot point (see Fig. 1 in which there are two arm portions extending from either side of the pivot point DP), and
wherein the first reflector (5.1) is attached to the first portion and the second reflector (5.2) is attached to the second portion (see Fig. 1 in which the two portions of the assembly 4 attach to the first reflector and the second reflector respectively).
Regarding claim 16, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner further teaches: the first reflector (5.1) and/or the second reflector (5.2) is independently selected from the group consisting of a mirror, a prism, a retroreflector, a retroreflector mirror, a retroreflector prism, or a corner cube retroreflector (“the roof edge reflectors are preferably made of optically clean carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) with gold coating of the optically effective surfaces”; [0217], therefore 5.1 and 5.2 are mirrors);
or wherein the beamsplitter (3) comprises a plate beamsplitter (“a beam splitter, preferably also as a double-plate beam splitter”; [0210]) or a cubic beamsplitter;
or wherein the target (18.1) comprises a detector, a screen, or a camera (“rasterized matrix detector 18.1”; [0320]), and
optionally wherein the detector comprises an infrared detector, a mid-infrared detector, or a near-infrared detector (“the reflected light object 17 onto a rasterized matrix detector 18.1 for the VIS and NIR range”; [0320]).
Regarding claim 18, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner fails to teach: one or more of the following: an ATR crystal substrate or an optically clear sample container or window against which a sample is pressed; one or more flat mirrors, parabolic mirrors, off-axis parabolic mirrors, lenses, windows, or combinations thereof; one or more controller systems configured to power and control the optical source, the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and/or the detector; one or more positioning systems configured to determine a position of the first reflector and/or the second reflector based on a voltage driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and/or based on a signal from a sensing gauge configured to sense a movement and/or a position of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector; a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; a processor configured to receive one or more signals from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, one or more sensing gauges, and/or the detector, wherein the processor is optionally configured to record position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to record a signal from the detector, to generate an interferogram, to correct an interferogram for non-linearity and/or hysteresis between forward and back strokes of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to generate an average interferogram, and/or to execute software for system control, data acquisition, data correction, data manipulation, and/or analysis including Fourier Transform of the interferogram to generate spectra; a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming; and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferograms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: one or more of the following:
an ATR crystal substrate or an optically clear sample container or window against which a sample is pressed;
one or more flat mirrors, parabolic mirrors, off-axis parabolic mirrors, lenses, windows, or combinations thereof;
one or more controller systems configured to power and control the optical source, the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and/or the detector (“robust LQG/LTR nanopositioning controllers for the Fabry-Perót system”; page 4809 section 8);
one or more positioning systems configured to determine a position of the first reflector and/or the second reflector based on a voltage driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and/or based on a signal from a sensing gauge configured to sense a movement and/or a position of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The outputs of the capacitive sensors are connected directly to MC900 modules. Such modules convert the capacitance of the sensors measure into a voltage value that is proportional to the measured distance”; page 4801 para 8);
a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector;
a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator;
a processor (MIMO system) configured to receive one or more signals from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, one or more sensing gauges, and/or the detector (“The input of the MIMO system are the three piezoactuators voltage inputs, u1, u2 and u3, and the outputs are the measurement of the capacitive sensors, s12, s23, s13, all of them in Volts”; page 4803 section 3.3), wherein the processor is optionally configured to record position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to record a signal from the detector, to generate an interferogram, to correct an interferogram for non-linearity and/or hysteresis between forward and back strokes of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to generate an average interferogram, and/or to execute software for system control, data acquisition, data correction, data manipulation, and/or analysis including Fourier Transform of the interferogram to generate spectra;
a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming;
and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferograms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “Such feedback control system is needed to set and control the desired distance between the plates and is the aim of this work to develop different approaches to the design of a successful controller for the BTFI Fabry-Perót system” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which one or more of the limitations of claim 18 is satisfied, for the purpose of providing a controller configured to set and control the desired distances (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina, and further in view of Ouattara (US 10389277 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Matsumura and Molina fail to teach: the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in an open-loop manner, and optionally wherein the interferometer further comprises: a low noise circuit configured to provide one or more output voltages to drive the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, wherein the one or more output voltages are configured to provide a position of the second reflector.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of piezoelectric actuators, Ouattara teaches: the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in an open-loop manner (“The hybrid amplifier thus makes it possible to control any piezoelectric actuator in an open loop since the voltage-displacement property is rendered practically linear”; col 2 lines 24-26), and optionally wherein the interferometer further comprises: a low noise circuit configured to provide one or more output voltages to drive the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, wherein the one or more output voltages are configured to provide a position of the second reflector.
Furthermore, Ouattara teaches this configuration such that “Another advantage of the invention is that the hybrid amplifier is able to operate with any type of piezoelectric actuator for which it is not necessary to have knowledge of the equivalent hysteresis model. The hybrid amplifier thus makes it possible to control any piezoelectric actuator in an open loop since the voltage-displacement property is rendered practically linear” (Ouattara, col 2 lines 21-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Ouattara to provide a device in which the first amplified piezoelectric actuator is configured for operation in an open-loop manner, for the purpose of minimizing hysteresis (Ouattara, col 2 lines 21-27).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina, and further in view of Downs (US 5847828 A).
Regarding claim 17, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner and Molina fail to teach: a compensating plate in an optical path between the beamsplitter and the first reflector; or an assembly configured to insert and retract a reference material into and out of an optical path; or a sample holder configured to provide a sample, wherein the sample holder is further configured to interact the combined light beam with the sample, thereby providing an interacted light beam; wherein the detector is configured to receive the interacted light beam,; and optionally wherein the interferometer, the sample holder, and the detector are configured for measuring spectra of the sample using attenuated total internal reflectance (ATR), diffusion reflectance, photoacoustic or transmission mode.
However, in a related invention in the field of interferometers, Downs teaches in Fig. 1: a compensating plate in an optical path between the beamsplitter and the first reflector (“The transmitted beam 3 passes by way of a wedge-shaped compensator plate 9 to a retroreflector 11 and back through the compensator plate to the beamsplitter”; col 2 lines 50-53, see also compensator 39 in Fig. 2); or an assembly configured to insert and retract a reference material into and out of an optical path; or a sample holder configured to provide a sample, wherein the sample holder is further configured to interact the combined light beam with the sample, thereby providing an interacted light beam; wherein the detector is configured to receive the interacted light beam; and optionally wherein the interferometer, the sample holder, and the detector are configured for measuring spectra of the sample using attenuated total internal reflectance (ATR), diffusion reflectance, photoacoustic or transmission mode.
Furthermore, Downs teaches this configuration such that “[t]he plate 39 acts as a compensator, cancelling out the beam displacement and deviation introduced by the beamsplitter plate 37” (Downs, col 2 lines 56-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Downs to provide a device comprising a compensating plate in an optical path between the beamsplitter and the first reflector, for the purpose of cancelling out the beam displacement and deviation introduced by the beamsplitter (Downs, col 2 lines 56-58).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina, as in claim 2, and further in view of Rapp (US 7034944 B2), Geyer (US 20070043451 A1), Etchin (US 10168214 B2), and Suzuki (US 20220381677 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner fails to explicitly teach: one or more controller systems configured to power and control the optical source, the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and/or the detector; one or more positioning systems configured to determine a position of the first reflector and/or the second reflector based on a voltage driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator and/or based on a signal from a sensing gauge configured to sense a movement and/or a position of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector; a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; a processor configured to receive one or more signals from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, one or more sensing gauges, and/or the detector, wherein the processor is optionally configured to record position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to record a signal from the detector to generate an interferogram, to correct an interferogram for non-linearity and/or hysteresis between forward and back strokes of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to generate an average interferogram, and/or to execute software for system control, data acquisition, data correction, data manipulation, and/or analysis including Fourier Transform of the interferogram to generate spectra; a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming; and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferograms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: one or more controller systems configured to power and control the optical source, the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and/or the detector (“the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators”; abstract);
one or more positioning systems configured to determine a position of the first reflector and/or the second reflector based on a voltage driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The input of the MIMO system are the three piezoactuators voltage inputs, u1, u2 and u3, and the outputs are the measurement of the capacitive sensors, s12, s23, s13, all of them in Volts”; page 4803 section 3.3, “The piezoactuators APA400MML are solid-state long-stroke actuators based on the expansion of the active material and on a mechanism to amplify the displacement (CEDRAT 2013), allowing a maximum displacement of 250 μm at 150 V” ; page 4801 para 6) and/or based on a signal from a sensing gauge configured to sense a movement and/or a position of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator;
…
a processor (MIMO system) configured to receive one or more signals from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“The input of the MIMO system are the three piezoactuators voltage inputs, u1, u2 and u3, and the outputs are the measurement of the capacitive sensors, s12, s23, s13, all of them in Volts”; page 4803 section 3.3), one or more sensing gauges, and/or the detector, wherein the processor is optionally configured to record position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to record a signal from the detector to generate an interferogram, to correct an interferogram for non-linearity and/or hysteresis between forward and back strokes of the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, to generate an average interferogram, and/or to execute software for system control, data acquisition, data correction, data manipulation, and/or analysis including Fourier Transform of the interferogram to generate spectra.
However, Molina fails to teach: … a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector; a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; … and a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming; and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferograms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
However, in a related invention in the field of digital FTIR spectrometers, Rapp teaches in Fig. 1: … a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector (“The analogue signal of the detector 12 is transmitted, via a data line 22, to a remote digitizing unit 13 and digitized”; col 3 lines 37-39); …
Furthermore, Rapp teaches this configuration such that “This frequency-modulated signal is measured by a detector, converted into a corresponding analogue voltage, then digitized and divided into its spectral components by Fourier transformation and displayed” (Rapp, col 1 lines 60-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumura and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Rapp to provide a device comprising a first converter configured to digitize a signal transmitted from the detector, for the purpose of displaying the signal (Rapp, col 1 lines 60-64).
However, Rapp fails to teach: a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator; … and a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming; and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferogram 1ms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
However, in a related invention in the field of piezoelectric actuators for micropositioning systems, Geyer teaches in Fig. 1: a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“[t]he feedforward loop further leads to a second fast digital/analog converter which is controlled independent of the sampling system. The control voltages representing output signals of the converters are then supplied in an added-up form to the device to be controlled, in particular to the piezoelectric actuator which together with a position sensor forms the controlled system proper”; [0013]).
Furthermore, Geyer teaches this configuration such that “it was found that feedforward systems in analog controllers, e.g. for the operation of piezoelectric actuators may essentially readily be realised. Difficulties will be encountered, however, if a digital controller is to be realised because the sampling operation generates principal latency times which considerably limit the inherently given dynamic advantage of the feedforward loop. Furthermore, other waiting times, partially with variable lengths, exist in known digital control units so that primarily analog controllers have been relied on for highly dynamic applications” (Geyer, [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumura, Molina, and Rapp to incorporate the teachings of Geyer to provide a device comprising a second converter configured to transform a digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of utilizing an analogue signal for highly dynamic applications (Geyer, [0006]).
However, Geyer fails to teach: a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming; and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferogram 1ms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
However, in a related invention in the field of piezo actuated Fabry-Perot interferometers , Etchin teaches: a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming (“The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor”; col 2 lines 28-33).
Furthermore, Etchin teaches this configuration such that “a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions” (Etchin, col 2 lines 48-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumura, Molina, Rapp, and Geyer to incorporate the teachings of Etchin to provide a device comprising a memory device capable of communicating with the processor, wherein the memory device is configured to store data, one or more outputs of the processor, and/or software programming, for the purpose of processing data such as computer program instructions (Etchin, col 2 lines 48-45).
However, Etchin fails to teach: and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferogram 1ms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra.
In a related invention in the field of Fourier spectrophotometers, Suzuki teaches in Fig. 2: and/or a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferogram 1ms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra (“The signal processing device 60 outputs a signal indicating the spectrum obtained by the above processing to the outside, or causes a display device (for example, a liquid crystal display device) (not illustrated) to display the signal”; [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner, Molina, Rapp, Geyer, and Etchin to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to provide a device comprising a display configured to display one or more outputs of the processor and/or the memory device, wherein the one or more outputs can include position data from the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, interferogram 1ms, Fourier Transform of the interferograms, and/or spectra, for the purpose of displaying the signal indicating the spectrum obtained by the optical device (Suzuki, [0054]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapp (US 7034944 B2) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina.
Regarding claim 20, Rapp teaches in Fig. 1: a method of analyzing a sample (“transparent sample 10”; col 3 line 33), the method comprising:
providing a sample (10) in an optical path of a beam from an interferometer (“The interferometer 7”; col 3 lines 28-29, see beam path of Fig. 1);
obtaining an interferogram of the sample from the interferometer (“The current position of the movable mirror within the interferometer, or of the movable mirrors or retroreflectors is usually determined by a laser interferogram”; col 2 lines 52-54, the light reaching the detector interacts with the sample, which therefore makes the interferogram ‘of the sample’);
and optionally processing the interferogram by way of Fourier Transform analysis (“In FTIR spectroscopy an optical signal is frequency-modulated by the interferometer. This frequency-modulated signal is measured by a detector, converted into a corresponding analogue voltage, then digitized and divided into its spectral components by Fourier transformation and displayed”; col 1 lines 59-64).
However, Rapp does not teach: moving at least one optical component of the interferometer by using a first amplified piezoelectric actuator that is directly or indirectly coupled to the at least one optical component, wherein a position of the at least one optical component is determined by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches: moving at least one optical component of the interferometer by using a first amplified piezoelectric actuator that is directly or indirectly coupled to the at least one optical component (“the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators”; abstract), wherein a position of the at least one optical component is determined by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“piezoelectric actuators (or piezoactuators), used for fine-positioning the mirrors”; page 4801 para 6).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rapp to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which moving at least one optical component of the interferometer by using a first amplified piezoelectric actuator that is directly or indirectly coupled to the at least one optical component, wherein a position of the at least one optical component is determined by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina, as in claim 2, and further in view of Do (US 6174102 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. The combination of Korner and Molina fails to explicitly teach: a return assembly configured to provide a supplemental pull force for the second reflector.
However, in a related invention in the field of modular motion for precision movement of optical elements, Do teaches in Fig. 1A and 12: a return assembly configured to provide a supplemental pull force (“Any action on the part of micrometer positioner tip 128 [see FIG. 1A.] tending to move translation stage 110 in a direction away from clamp 106 is met by a countervailing spring tension which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 26-31, Fig. ) for the second reflector (“The optic holder includes a circular counterbore 1212 in which an optic element such as a mirror or lens may be positioned”; col 15 lines 61-63, Fig. 12).
Furthermore, Do teaches this configuration such that “The adjustable member is affixed to the base with the tip in contact with an end of the mobile stage to counteract the operation of the bias member” (Do, col 2 lines 24-34). Do further teaches that “the positioning element frictionally engages an edge of base 804 and works against both the gravitational and spring bias force 870. This arrangement helps assure that any weakening over time of the bias member should not effect the accuracy, precision, or repeatability of the linear translation and positioning” (Do, col 14 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Do to provide a device in which a return assembly is configured to provide a supplemental pull force for the second reflector, for the purpose of counteracting movement and maintain precision of the translation stage (Do, col 2 lines 24-34 and col 14 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 8, Korner, Molina, and Do teach the interferometer of claim 7. Matsumura further teaches: the first (7) is configured to translate the second reflector (5.2) away from and towards the beamsplitter (“The roof prism reflectors 5.1 and 5.2 of the two-beam interferometer are rotated around the axis of rotation in order to generate the required optical path difference”; [0323], when 5.2 is pivoted around DP the reflector is moved toward or away from the beam splitter 3, see Fig. 1).
Korner fails to teach: the first actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator and wherein the return assembly is configured to translate the second reflector away from the beamsplitter.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of interferometers, Molina teaches the use of amplified piezoelectric actuators to move a mirror: “the mirror nanopositioning controller of the state-of-the-art Fabry Pérot interferometer … composed of three high-range Amplified Piezoelectric Actuators” (Molina, abstract).
Furthermore, Molina teaches this configuration such that “The proposed Fabry Perót interferometer is designed to work in a larger range of spectral resolutions (R ~1000 to R ~30000), which requires a range for the distance between the plates from zero to at least 200 μm. To meet such specific requirement, high excursion piezoelectric actuators (APA400MML, manufactured by CEDRAT Technologies Co) and high-sensitivity capacitive sensors compose the feedback nanopositioning system.” (Molina, page 4801 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsumura to incorporate the teachings of Molina to provide a device in which the actuator is an amplified piezoelectric actuator, for the purpose of precisely moving the reflecting element in order to maximize resolution (Molina, page 4801 paras 7-8).
However, Molina fails to teach: the return assembly is configured to translate the second reflector away from the beamsplitter.
In a related invention in the field of modular motion for precision movement of optical elements, Do teaches in Fig. 1A and 12: a return assembly configured to provide a supplemental pull force (“Any action on the part of micrometer positioner tip 128 [see FIG. 1A.] tending to move translation stage 110 in a direction away from clamp 106 is met by a countervailing spring tension which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 26-31, Fig. 1A). Thus, if the configuration of Do was incorporated into the structure of Korner, the countervailing spring tension would bias the optical stage in the opposing direction from the beam splitter.
Furthermore, Do teaches this configuration such that “The adjustable member is affixed to the base with the tip in contact with an end of the mobile stage to counteract the operation of the bias member” (Do, col 2 lines 24-34). Do further teaches that “the positioning element frictionally engages an edge of base 804 and works against both the gravitational and spring bias force 870. This arrangement helps assure that any weakening over time of the bias member should not effect the accuracy, precision, or repeatability of the linear translation and positioning” (Do, col 14 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Do to provide a device in which a return assembly is configured to provide a supplemental pull force for the second reflector, for the purpose of counteracting movement and maintain precision of the translation stage (Do, col 2 lines 24-34 and col 14 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 9, Korner, Molina, and Do teach the interferometer of claim 7. Korner and Molina fail to teach: the return assembly comprises a spring coupled to the second reflector, and wherein the spring is compressed or stretched upon translating the second reflector by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator in a forward stroke, thereby allowing the spring to provide the supplemental pull force that translates the second reflector in the opposite direction on a back stroke.
However, in a related invention in the field of modular motion for precision movement of optical elements, Do teaches in Fig. 1A and 12: the return assembly comprises a spring coupled to the second reflector (“the bias members, e.g., springs affixed on one end to the mobile translation stage 410 and on the opposing end to the base, continually bias the tip of the positioner into contact with the base 404”; col 14 lines 35-38, spring is coupled to base upon which the reflector is coupled, see Fig. 12), and wherein the spring is compressed or stretched upon translating the second reflector by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator (“Suitable positioning members include the above-mentioned micrometer and in addition, thumb screws, set screws, lead screws, piezoelectric, magnetostrictive, linear motors and electromechanical actuators”; col 11 lines 39-42) in a forward stroke (“Any action on the part of micrometer positioner tip 128 [see FIG. 1A.] tending to move translation stage 110 in a direction away from clamp 106 is met by a countervailing spring tension which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 26-30), thereby allowing the spring to provide the supplemental pull force that translates the second reflector in the opposite direction on a back stroke (“which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 30).
Furthermore, Do teaches this configuration such that “The adjustable member is affixed to the base with the tip in contact with an end of the mobile stage to counteract the operation of the bias member” (Do, col 2 lines 24-34). Do further teaches that “the positioning element frictionally engages an edge of base 804 and works against both the gravitational and spring bias force 870. This arrangement helps assure that any weakening over time of the bias member should not effect the accuracy, precision, or repeatability of the linear translation and positioning” (Do, col 14 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Do to provide a device in which the return assembly comprises a spring coupled to the second reflector, and wherein the spring is compressed or stretched upon translating the second reflector by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator in a forward stroke, thereby allowing the spring to provide the supplemental pull force that translates the second reflector in the opposite direction on a back stroke, for the purpose of counteracting movement and maintain precision of the translation stage (Do, col 2 lines 24-34 and col 14 lines 15-20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (WO2014067651A1) and Molina, Ana & Fialho, Fábio & Orsatti, Fernando & Marchiori, Victor & Ouattara, Issa & Silva, Leonardo & Souza, Jair & Oliveira, Claudia. (2013). HIGH RESOLUTION FABRY-PÉROT INTERFEROMETER-DYNAMIC SYSTEM MODELING AND NANOPOSITIONING CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING LQG/LTR TECHNIQUE High Resolution Fabry-Pérot Interferometer-Dynamic System Modeling And Nanopositioning Control System Design, hereinafter Molina, as in claim 2, and further in view of Tank (US 5291268 A).
Regarding claim 11, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 2. Korner and Molina fail to explicitly teach: one or more guide assemblies configured to align the first reflector and/or the second reflector when translating away from or towards the beamsplitter, optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies comprise one or more bearings, sleeve bearings, guide bearings, or magnetic bearings located in proximity to the first or second reflector, and optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies are configured to align the first or second reflector along an intended axis of motion that is towards and away from the beamsplitter.
However, in a related invention in the field of interferometers, Tank teaches in Fig. 1: one or more guide assemblies (guide assembly being elements 3, 31, and 32) configured to align the first reflector and/or the second reflector (14) (“mirror element 14 has a mirror holder 31 and a schematically indicated guide 32”; col 4 lines 44-46) when translating away from or towards the beamsplitter (“a beam splitter 12”; col 4 lines 39-40),
optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies comprise one or more bearings, sleeve bearings, guide bearings, or magnetic bearings located in proximity to the first or second reflector (“A bearing 3 for the movable mirror element 14 has a mirror holder 31 and a schematically indicated guide 32”; col 4 lines 44-46), and
optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies (guide assembly being elements 3, 31, and 32) are configured to align the first or second reflector (14) along an intended axis of motion that is towards and away from the beamsplitter (“A motor 2 illustrated as block is associated with the guide 32 and the reciprocal movement of the mirror element 14 produced by the motor 2 is indicated by an arrow provided with two tips”; col 4 lines 46-49, see Fig. 1 which shows the guide can be translated either towards or away from the beam splitter 12 as indicated by the arrow).
Furthermore, Tank teaches this configuration such that is it capable of “determining a path difference in a Michelson interferometer which comprises at least one reciprocably moving mirror element and an analog to digital converter, and which is provided for the determination of an electromagnetic spectrum without a laser having to be permanently used for that purpose” (Tank, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Korner and Molina to incorporate the teachings of Tank to provide a device in which one or more guide assemblies are configured to align the first reflector and/or the second reflector when translating away from or towards the beamsplitter, and optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies comprise one or more bearings, sleeve bearings, guide bearings, or magnetic bearings located in proximity to the first or second reflector, and optionally wherein the one or more guide assemblies are configured to align the first or second reflector along an intended axis of motion that is towards and away from the beamsplitter, for the purpose of using a movable mirror for the determination of an electromagnetic spectrum (Tank, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 12. Korner and Molina fail to teach: a return assembly that is directly or indirectly coupled to the arm assembly, wherein the return assembly is configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided in a forward stroke by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein the force provided by the return assembly occurs after the movement provided by the forward stroke.
However, in a related invention in the field of modular motion for precision movement of optical elements, Do generally teaches in Fig. 1A and 12: a return assembly configured to provide a supplemental pull force (“Any action on the part of micrometer positioner tip 128 [see FIG. 1A.] tending to move translation stage 110 in a direction away from clamp 106 is met by a countervailing spring tension which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 26-31, Fig. ) for the second reflector (“The optic holder includes a circular counterbore 1212 in which an optic element such as a mirror or lens may be positioned”; col 15 lines 61-63, Fig. 12).
However, Do and the prior art of record fails to teach to a configuration such that “a return assembly that is directly or indirectly coupled to the arm assembly, wherein the return assembly is configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided in a forward stroke by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein the force provided by the return assembly occurs after the movement provided by the forward stroke.” The return assembly as taught by Do is not explicitly configured for use in an interferometer and therefore is silent on the relationship between an arm assembly and a return assembly.
Therefore, based on the prior art of record it would be improper to modify Korner to provide a device in which “a return assembly that is directly or indirectly coupled to the arm assembly, wherein the return assembly is configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided in a forward stroke by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein the force provided by the return assembly occurs after the movement provided by the forward stroke.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Regarding claim 14, Korner and Molina teach the interferometer of claim 12. Korner and Molina fail to teach: the arm assembly comprises a second outer edge that is perpendicular to the first outer edge, and wherein a portion of the first outer edge or the second outer edge is directly or indirectly coupled to a return assembly configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.
However, in a related invention in the field of modular motion for precision movement of optical elements, Do generally teaches in Fig. 1A and 12: a return assembly configured to provide a supplemental pull force (“Any action on the part of micrometer positioner tip 128 [see FIG. 1A.] tending to move translation stage 110 in a direction away from clamp 106 is met by a countervailing spring tension which tends to bias the mobile stage in an opposing direction”; col 5 lines 26-31, Fig. ) for the second reflector (“The optic holder includes a circular counterbore 1212 in which an optic element such as a mirror or lens may be positioned”; col 15 lines 61-63, Fig. 12).
However, Do and the prior art of record fails to teach to a configuration such that “the arm assembly comprises a second outer edge that is perpendicular to the first outer edge, and wherein a portion of the first outer edge or the second outer edge is directly or indirectly coupled to a return assembly configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator.” The return assembly as taught by Do is not explicitly configured for use in an interferometer and therefore is silent on the relationship between an arm assembly and a return assembly.
Therefore, based on the prior art of record it would be improper to modify Korner to provide a device in which “a return assembly that is directly or indirectly coupled to the arm assembly, wherein the return assembly is configured to provide a force that moves the arm assembly in an opposite direction than a movement provided in a forward stroke by the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, and wherein the force provided by the return assembly occurs after the movement provided by the forward stroke.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170138790 A1: digital signal transmitted from the one or more controller systems into an analog signal for driving the first amplified piezoelectric actuator, relevant to claim 19.
US-5270790-A: Michelson interferometer with a motor used to translate a reflector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights