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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/2023, 12/19/2024, 07/18/2025, and 11/10/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kryvobok (US 2016/0231420 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system operative to deflect a beam of laser energy within a two-dimensional scan field (fig. 4), the AOD system including:
a first AOD (45b) operative to deflect the beam of laser energy along a first axis of the two-dimensional scan field (para. 0085);
a second AOD (45a) arranged optically downstream of the first AOD (see fig. 4; para. 0085),
where the second AOD is operative to deflect the beam of laser energy along a second axis of the two-dimensional scan field (para. 0085);
and a controller operatively coupled to the AOD system, where the controller is configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the beam of laser energy within the two-dimensional scan field (para. 0083, 0085), and where the controller is further configured to drive the first AOD and the second AOD at least substantially the same diffraction efficiency (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 2 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the controller is further configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD at a diffraction efficiency of less than 80% (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 3 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the controller is further configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD at a diffraction efficiency of less than 70% (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 5 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the controller is further configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD to temporally divide a laser pulse from the beam of laser energy (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 6 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the beam of laser energy comprises a laser pulse and where the is configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the entire laser pulse (para. 0082).
Regarding claim 7 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, further comprising a scan lens arranged optically downstream of the AOD system (para. 0081).
Regarding claim 8 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, further comprising a laser operative to generate the beam of laser energy (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 9 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the beam of laser energy has a wavelength in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (para. 0028).
Regarding claim 11 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where the controller is configured to control the diffraction efficiency at which at least one AOD selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD is driven by controlling an amplitude of an RF drive signal applied to the at least one AOD selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD (para. 0092).
Regarding claim 12 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, where at least one selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and second AOD includes an acousto-optic cell having a plurality of transducers attached thereto and wherein the controller is configured to control the diffraction efficiency at which the at least one AOD selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD is driven by controlling a phase with which an RF drive signal is applied to each transducer of the at least one AOD selected from the group consisting of the first AOD and the second AOD (para. 0092).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryvobok (US 2016/0231420 A1) in view of Riza (US 5,694,216).
Regarding claim 4 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, except where the controller is further configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD at a diffraction efficiency of less than 50%.
Riza teaches where the controller is further configured to drive each of the first AOD and the second AOD at a diffraction efficiency of less than 50% (col. 16, lines 41-61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the surface scan system as taught by Krycobok with the use of a low diffraction efficiency as taught by Riza for the benefit of laser power on sample control.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryvobok (US 2016/0231420 A1) in view of Abovitz et. al. (US 2015/0016777 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Kryvobok teaches (fig. 4) an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) system, except where the beam of laser energy has a wavelength in the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Abovitz teaches where the beam of laser energy has a wavelength in the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum (para. 0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the surface scan system as taught by Krycobok with the use of a UV laser source as taught by Abovitz for the benefit of fluorescence defect detection or contamination identification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. similar AOD scanning systems include Chang et. al. (US 4,118,113), Johnson (US 4,558,926), Langdon (US 2009/0284826 A1), Zhang et. al. (US 2016/0250714 A1), and Unrath et. al. (US 2019/0329350 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872