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
Examiner's Note
In the Pre-Brief Appeal Conference decision mailed on January 23, 2026, it was mentioned that the rejection is withdrawn and a new office action will be mailed. Accordingly, the finality of the office action mailed on August 18, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities the specification does not have a description of the “spectrometer” in the drawing. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “spectrometer” as recited in claims 16 and 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-17, 19-34, 36-38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (2014/0204398 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Smith et al. (2017/0172693 A1) or Yelin et al. (2015/0011896 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 34, 36, and 39, Sato discloses a chromatic confocal measuring device is included in a light emitting device 101 (figs. 1-17) comprising:
a spectrometer is included in the optical device (figs. 1, 3 and 7) as an instrument used to separate and measure spectral components of a light emitting portion 3 and/or analyzes the properties of light or electromagnetic radiation by separating it into its constituent wavelengths or frequencies, allowing for identification and analysis of materials through their spectral signatures [pars. 0072];
an optical element a lens 29 exhibiting a dispersive behavior [pars. 0025]; and
a broadband light source a laser element/white light 24/203/205 [pars. 0252] configured to emit broadband/white light in a visible wavelength range up to a near infrared wavelength range, wherein the broadband light source includes
- a fiber or fiber bundle configured to guide the broadband light towards the optical element [par. 0004, 0214],
- a pump light source configured to emit pump light in a wavelength range from 350 nm to 500 nm [pars. 0246, 0253],
- a luminophore a light emitting portion 3 [pars. 0081, 0163-164] configured to convert the pump light into the broadband light, wherein the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 is located on a heat sink heat dissipation plate 7 that is non-movably arranged relative to the pump light source, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0081, 0163-164],
- first optics a collimator lens 25 and a condensing lens 27 configured to image the pump light source onto the luminophore light emitting portion 3,
- second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 configured to image the luminophore the light emitting portion 3, is thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light, wherein a first beam path of the pump light from the pump light source (24a) to the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 and a second beam path of the broadband light from the luminophore the light emitting portion 3 onto the light receiving element (light receiving portion) 30 [par. 0114], and a beam splitter as a beam splitter (half mirror) 26 configured to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0112, 0129-132].
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional change(s) of second optics configured to image the luminophore onto a facet of the fiber or fiber bundle, thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light into the fiber or fiber bundle, wherein a first beam path of the pump light from the pump light source to the luminophore and a second beam path of the broadband light from the luminophore onto the facet of the fiber or fiber bundle partially coincide, and Sato fail to teaches that the beam splitter is a dichroic type beam splitter configured to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path.
Smith from the field of endeavor teaches of (i.e. second) optics (322) configured to received collimated and/or condense light beam onto a facet of the fiber or fiber bundle to out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path, thereby coupling at least a portion of the broadband light into the fiber 324 or fiber bundle, or out-couple the second beam path from the first beam path onto the facet of the fiber or fiber bundle partially coincide [pars. 0035-37], is known in the art in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss.
Further, Smith also teaches of substituting a dichroic beam splitter for combination of beam splitter (26) and a fluorescence cutoff filter (optical function filter) 28 as taught by Sato (Sato, [pars. 0112, 0137-138], since the result and/or outcome is the same or identical, which is in part function as a way of selection of desired signal frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, as per teaching of Sato to substitute the combination to make the system compact with dichroic beam splitter. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Smith teaching and Sato suggestion in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss and in order to accurately select desired signal/frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Smith teaching and Sato suggestion in order to enable and enhance much faster speeds and lower signal loss and in order to accurately select desired signal/frequency/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Furthermore, in the alternative, if the Applicant argues that the structure of Sato fail to explicitly specify "a spectrometer" as a part of the claimed chromatic confocal measuring device then in view of Yelin from the same field of endeavor teaches of spectrometer included in the system as instrument used to separate and measure spectral components of a light emitting portion 3 and/or analyzes the properties of light or electromagnetic radiation by separating it into its constituent wavelengths or frequencies, allowing for identification and analysis of materials through their spectral signatures, is known in the art Yelin (Yelin, [pars. 0128, 0140, 0226] in order to accurately measure for a distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in the emitted light or any combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato system as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 16, 34, 36, and 39 in view of Yelin teaching in order to enable and enhance accurately measure for a distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in the emitted light or any combination thereof to determine the distinct/discrete spectral band/wavelength in order to prevent operation errors of the light receiving element/device, as per teaching of Sato, (Sato, [pars. 0112, 0137-138]), since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purpose of clarity, the structure recited in claims 34, 36 and 39 is/are symmetrical to the structure recited in claim 16, as such, claims 34, and 36 are rejected above as being unpatentable over Sato.
In addition, regarding claim 39, when a claim takes the form “A or B”, a prior art reference teaching only A is anticipatory, as is a prior art reference teaching only B: that’s what the “or” means, that you are setting forth alternatives. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001), see MPEP 2131.
As to claim 17, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato discloses wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3).
As to claim 30, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato also discloses a structure that is use in a measuring device/system that is implementing limitations such as, comprising means for speckle reduction is using a white light that is a wider bandwidth source [pars. 0252, 0292, 0390-391].
For the purpose of clarity, Applicant disclosure as published [par. 0034], using of (i.e. a wider bandwidth …source……) is a speckle reduction technique(s).
As to claim 38, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato also discloses, wherein the luminophore comprises a plurality of luminophore layers that are layered on top of each other [pars. 0001-5].
As to claim 19-24, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3), Sato further teaches as illustrated in FIG. 7, the light emitting device 105 includes a laser element 2, a condensing lens 71, an optical fiber 72, a ferrule (optical member) 73 [pars. 0213-216], a light emitting portion 3, as applied to claim 16.
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 19-24, such as, wherein an image of an area, which is illuminated on the luminophore by the pump light, formed on the facet of the fiber bundle or fiber is smaller than a lateral extent of the facet (claim 19); further comprising a further optical element arranged in a light path in front of the dichroic mirror and configured to introduce spherical aberrations (claim 20); further comprising a further optical element arranged in a light path behind the dichroic mirror and configured to introduce spherical aberrations (claim 21); wherein the luminophore is arranged at an axially displaced position relative to a focus of the pump light (claim 22); further comprising a plurality of pump sources configured to illuminate non-overlapping or only partially overlapping areas on the luminophore (claim 23); and further comprising at least one splitting optical element that is configured to split the pump light into a plurality of pump light beam paths that illuminate non-overlapping or only partially overlapping areas on the luminophore (claim 24).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 19-24, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 19-24, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 25-29, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of fibers transmitting light emitted toward the light emitting portion 3, fibers receiving light emitted by the light emitting portion 3, laser light emitted from the laser element 24c passes through the collimator lens 25c and is incident on the beam splitter 26cand a beam splitter (half mirror) 26c [pars. 0214-217].
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 25-29, such as, wherein a fiber bundle comprises a plurality of individual fibers and guides the broadband light towards the optical element, and wherein ends of the plurality of individual fibers on a side opposite to the facet are arranged in a first pattern that is imaged by the optical element on an object to be measured for simultaneously measuring distances or thicknesses at a plurality of locations that are arranged in a second pattern that corresponds to the first pattern (claim 25); wherein the first pattern is a line (claim 26); wherein a single multi-mode fiber guides the broadband light towards the optical element, and wherein the device comprises a splitting device configured to split the broadband light, after exiting the multi-mode fiber, into a line or a plurality of discrete points for simultaneously measuring distances or thicknesses at a plurality of locations on an object to be measured (claim 27); wherein a single fiber guides the broadband light towards the optical element so that a distance of a thickness is measured on an object to be measured at a single location, and wherein the single fiber has a diameter smaller than 300 pm (claim 28); and further comprising a beam splitter cube that is configured to direct the broadband light guided in the fiber or fiber bundle towards the optical element, and that is configured to direct light that has been reflected or backscattered by an object to be measured towards the spectrometer (claim 29).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 25-29, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 25-29, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954). In this case, it would have been at least it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 25-29, in order to optimize the system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As to claim 31-33 and 37-38, Sato when modified by Smith or Yelin, Sato teaches of wherein the first optics lens 25 and condensing lens 27 and the second optics condensing lens 27 and lens 29 comprise at least one common imaging optical element condensing lens 27, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3), Sato further teaches as illustrated in FIG. 7, the light emitting device 105 includes a laser element 2, a condensing lens 71, an optical fiber 72, a ferrule (optical member) 73 [pars. 0213-216], a light emitting portion 3, means for speckle reduction is using a white light that is a wider bandwidth source [pars. 0252, 0292, 0390-391], and a luminophore a light emitting portion 3 [pars. 0081, 0163-164] configured to convert the pump light into the broadband light, wherein the luminophore is located on a heat sink heat dissipation plate 7 that is non-movably arranged relative to the pump light source, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. fig. 3) [pars. 0081, 0163-164], as applied to claim 16.
Sato fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 31-33, such as, wherein the means for speckle reduction comprises a reduction of a coherence magnitude by introducing a frequency modulation or a phase modulation at the pump source (claim 31); wherein the frequency modulation or the phase modulation is achieved by varying an ambient temperature or a diode current (claim 32) a cylinder lens configured to correct an astigmatism present at the pump light source (claim 33); wherein the heat sink comprises a plurality of cooling ribs (claim 37); and wherein the luminophore comprises a plurality of luminophore layers that are layered on top of each other (claim 38).
However, even though, Sato fail to teach the slight constructional change(s) in the device of claim 16, as that claimed by Applicants claims 31-33 and 37-38, the constructional/structural change differences are considered obvious design variation and routine in the art, in order to optimize the working function of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 31-33 and 37-38 in order to optimize the working condition the device/system, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) in the current rejection.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art chromatic confocal measuring device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877