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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-23-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the limitation, “the electro-optical modulator produces a different amount of rotation in polarization state for each wavelength in the light in response to each value of the control signal,” is not taught. However, this argument is not persuasive for two reasons. Firstly, in an apparatus claim the functional language is only limiting in that it must be capable of being performed by the disclosed structure. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Given that the disclosed structure of a Pockels cell with a pair of orthogonal polarizers is the same as the applicant’s this must be true. If it weren’t then the applicant has failed to disclose some additional structure that makes it possible which would be a potential 112(a) issue. Further, the disclosure states, “The amplitude of the incident beam pulse 106b that is output by the cell is modulated into a wavelength-specific shape, as the half-wave voltage varies with each discrete wavelength,” which makes it apparent that Keyser is performing this function. This is because in order for the structure to vary the amplitude by wavelength the varying half-wage voltage is rotating each polarization state by a different amount.
The applicant argues the limitations, “a modulation controller that is communicatively coupled to the electro-optical modulator and provides the control signal to the electro-optical modulator to modulate the plurality of wavelengths in the light at different frequencies to produce a wavelength-frequency multiplex,” or “the at least one processor is configured to determine one or more parameters of the sample based on a wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light,” are not taught. The examiner disagrees, firstly because as before the modulation controller is capable of performing the above function but further the applicant is attempting to apply a very narrow interpretation to the language that is not warranted by the actual wording. Starting with the arguments about the limitation, “a modulation controller that is communicatively coupled to the electro-optical modulator and provides the control signal to the electro-optical modulator to modulate the plurality of wavelengths in the light at different frequencies to produce a wavelength-frequency multiplex,” the applicant argues that because Keyser discloses modulating each of the wavelengths with different voltage ramps to result in different waveforms this means this is not a modulation at different frequencies. First of all, within the scope of the disclosure that different voltage ramps are used to modulate each waveform based on the wavelength could very well be modulation between the different wavelengths at different frequencies. Further, the actual language is ambiguous to what frequencies is being referred too. In other words, it could be the frequency of the drive signal or the frequency of the light. Given that the disclosure states the modulation is varied by wavelength of the light the latter case would meet the limitation. Thus, the claimed wavelength-frequency multiplex is created and further from this the measurements are processed to determine the reflectivity of the target (applicant’s parameter of the sample) is determined. Since the applicant has failed to amend the claims to clarify this the examiner will stick with his original interpretation.
Thus, for these reasons the applicant has failed to overcome the rejection with their arguments. The examiner suggests further amendments to clarify how the claimed invention is different from the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keyser et al (US PAT 10,871,554) (Keyser).
Regarding Claims 1 & 9, Keyser discloses an optical metrology device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a light source (104) that produces light having a plurality of wavelengths (Column 4, lines 22-23);
a wavelength modulator (108) that receives the light having the plurality of wavelengths, the wavelength modulator comprising a pair of crossed polarizers and an electro-optical modulator disposed between the pair of crossed polarizers that modulates a polarization state of the light in response to a control signal, wherein the electro-optical modulator produces a different amount of rotation in polarization state for each wavelength in the light in response to each value of the control signal (Column 4, lines 23-39);
a modulation controller that is communicatively coupled to the electro-optical modulator and provides the control signal to the electro-optical modulator to modulate the plurality of wavelengths in the light at different frequencies to produce a wavelength-frequency multiplex (Column 4, lines 23-39);
illumination optics (110) and collection optics (116) configured to direct the light from the wavelength modulator to be incident on a sample and to collect at least a portion of resulting light from the sample (Column 3, lines 41-42 & Column 4, lines 4-5);
a detector (118) configured to detect intensity of the resulting light; and
at least one processor (120) coupled to the detector, the at least one processor is configured to determine one or more parameters of the sample based on a wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light (Column 4, lines 11-21).
The method of claim 9 is also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claims 4 & 12, Keyser discloses the aforementioned. Further, Keyser discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the one or more parameters of the sample based on amplitude of one or more wavelengths in the wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light (Column 4, lines 11-21).
Regarding Claims 5 & 13, Keyser discloses the aforementioned. Further, Keyser discloses wherein the electro-optical modulator comprises one of a Pockels cell and a Faraday rotator (Column 4, lines 23-39).
Regarding Claims 6 & 14, Keyser discloses the aforementioned. Further, Keyser discloses wherein the wavelength modulator is located between the light source and the sample (See fig. 1).
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.
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) 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyser.
Regarding Claims 2 & 10, Keyser discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform a Fourier transform of the wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light to detect wavelength data and the one or more parameters of the sample are determined based on the wavelength data;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Keyser with wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform a Fourier transform of the wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light to detect wavelength data and the one or more parameters of the sample are determined based on the wavelength data because Fourier transforms are commonly used to split an intensity signal into its frequency composition when analyzing that signal for its spectral composition and would be common sense to use since it makes such analysis simple.
Regarding Claims 3 & 11, Keyser discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose one or more lock-in amplifiers coupled to the detector that are configured to extract wavelength data for a corresponding one or more wavelengths in the wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light and the one or more parameters of the sample are determined based on the wavelength data;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Keyser with one or more lock-in amplifiers coupled to the detector that are configured to extract wavelength data for a corresponding one or more wavelengths in the wavelength-frequency multiplex spectrum in the resulting light and the one or more parameters of the sample are determined based on the wavelength data because lock-in amplifiers offer the advantage of being able to pick out the desired signal from a measurement with a high background noise thus improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the detection and making the measurement more accurate.
Regarding Claims 7 & 15, Keyser discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the wavelength modulator is located between the sample and the detector;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Keyser with wherein the wavelength modulator is located between the sample and the detector because using the wavelength modulator as a filter would be functionally equivalent to using it to modulate the light before the sample and would be done based upon packaging spacing.
Regarding Claims 8 & 16, Keyser discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control signal is a repeating signal having a maximum amplitude selected based on a break down characteristic of a crystal in the electro-optical modulator;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Keyser with wherein the control signal is a repeating signal having a maximum amplitude selected based on a break down characteristic of a crystal in the electro-optical modulator because this is common sense since the break down characteristics of the crystal is the point at which the crystal can suffer permanent damage from an electric field or intense laser exposure thus it would be advantageous to choose a signal having a maximum amplitude that does not cause damage.
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 February 18, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877