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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 7-11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 26-30, 33, 34, 37, & 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant should have marked these claims as (withdrawn) since they belong to unelected species. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-2-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the applicant’s interpretation of a filter to demodulate an interference pattern of the image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant in their arguments appears to be applying a very narrow interpretation of the language recited in the claim and then arguing that Sorin does not meet that interpretation. The language in the limitation is, “a controller … to: utilize a filter to demodulate an interference pattern of the image.” The applicant admits that Sorin discloses a Band Pass filter to operate on a time-varying electrical signal but then states flatly this signal is from a “non-imaging reflectometry receiver and is not an image-domain demodulation filter.” However, the examiner does not find this convincing. Firstly, the applicant has not provided enough context in the limitations to arrive at this conclusion. Secondly what does the applicant consider an image? An image is arguably anything that a light sensing device receives. Even an intensity modulation. Sorin teaches a photodiode receiving an interference signal and then demodulating it to improve the measurement. Also, arguing an electrical signal from a photodiode is not an image is akin to arguing the electrical impulses the human eye transmits to the brain are not image signals. At the most basic interpretation what is claimed is a filter to demodulate a signal that is an interference pattern and the examiner finds Sorin does this. Thus, if the applicant wishes to define their filter as they have in the arguments the applicant will have to amend the claims with structure/steps that overcomes the art.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23-25, 31, 32, 35, & 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motohashi et al (PGPub 2019/0277628) (Motohashi) in view of Sorin et al (US PAT 5,202,745) (Sorin).
Regarding Claims 1 & 20, Motohashi discloses a characterization system for characterizing a sample utilizing white light interferometry (Fig. 2, Paragraph 84) comprising:
an optical sub-system comprising:
a detector (25) configured for multi-pixel imaging;
an illumination source (200) configured to generate an illumination beam;
a beamsplitter (222) configured to split the illumination beam into a measurement beam and a reference beam (Paragraph 47);
a reference element (231) configured to tilt an optical axis of the reference beam relative to an optical axis of the measurement beam (Paragraph 49); and
a sample positioning stage (11, Fig. 1) configured to adjust a sample position of the sample along a Z-direction associated with a focal distance of the optical sub- system (Paragraph 37); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the detector and the sample positioning stage, wherein the controller includes one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
receive an image of the sample (Paragraph 66);
determine a location of the interference pattern on the image (Paragraph 66); and
direct a focal adjustment based on the location of the interference pattern, wherein the focal adjustment includes adjusting at least one of the sample positioning stage or an optical element of the optical sub-system (Paragraph 67);
Motohashi fails to explicitly disclose utilizing a filter to demodulate an interference pattern of the image;
However, Sorin teaches utilizing a filter to demodulate an interference pattern of the image (Columns 13 & 14, lines 67-68 & 1-14);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Motohashi with utilizing a filter to demodulate an interference pattern of the image because this will improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the detection by removing unwanted frequencies from the signal that would otherwise obscure it.
Regarding Claims 4 & 23, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Motohashi discloses wherein determining the location of the interference pattern is limited to a select portion of the image (Paragraph 67). When focusing the image the apparatus determines its in focus when it reaches a predetermined position. This meets the limitation.
Regarding Claims 5 & 24, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Motohashi discloses wherein directing the focal adjustment based on the location of the interference pattern comprises: directing the focal adjustment based on the location of the interference pattern during lateral scanning of the sample to maintain focus (Paragraph 67). Motohashi discloses performing a radial scan (applicant’s lateral scan) while determining the focus.
Regarding Claims 6 & 25, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Motohashi discloses wherein controller is further configured to cause the one or more processors to: generate vertical scan data along the depth direction of the sample during a lateral scanning of the sample (Paragraph 66). As disclosed during the scan it is measuring the height of the measured surface to derive a three-dimensional shape of the object. This would be applicant’s vertical scan data.
Regarding Claims 12 & 31, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Motohashi discloses wherein receiving the image of the sample comprises: receiving the image of the sample during a lateral scanning of the sample (Paragraph 66). A radial scan is being performed while it is imaging the surface thus meets this limitation.
Regarding Claims 13 & 32, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Motohashi discloses wherein directing the focal adjustment comprises directing the focal adjustment continuously for each received image such that the sample is continuously maintained in focus during the lateral scanning of the sample (Paragraph 67) since it is a continuous reading during a radial scan of the output during that step that sets the focus.
Regarding Claims 16 & 35, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Sorin discloses wherein the filter comprises at least one of a spectral filter or a spatial filter to create a filtered interference pattern. The filter as disclosed by Sorin is a spectral filter which creates a filtered interference pattern.
Regarding Claims 17 & 36, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Sorin discloses wherein the at least one of the spectral filter or the spatial filter includes a band pass filter. The spectral filter is a bandpass filter.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 21, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motohashi in view of Sorin and further in view of Kanaya et al (US PAT 5,886,786) (Kanaya).
Regarding Claims 2 & 21, Motohashi as modified by Sorin discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein controller is further configured to cause the one or more processors to: perform a selective blocking of the reference beam for receiving a secondary image without the interference pattern;
However, Kanaya discloses wherein controller is further configured to cause the one or more processors to: perform a selective blocking of the reference beam for receiving a secondary image without the interference pattern (Column 12, lines 33-44);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Motohashi as modified by Sorin with wherein controller is further configured to cause the one or more processors to: perform a selective blocking of the reference beam for receiving a secondary image without the interference pattern because during the rough alignment step of Motohashi this would yield an improved signal-to-noise ratio when attempting to make sure light is focused to a spot on the detector.
Regarding Claims 3 & 22, Motohashi as modified by Sorin and Kanaya discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the selective blocking is configured to be performed repeatedly during a lateral scan for receiving a plurality of secondary images;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Motohashi as modified by Sorin and Kanaya with wherein the selective blocking is configured to be performed repeatedly during a lateral scan for receiving a plurality of secondary images because repeated checks during the scan to make sure the optics are still all aligned and in focus would improve the accuracy of the measurements of the device and ensure the operation hasn’t caused the misalignment of the optics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 3, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights