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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and species B, corresponding to claims 1-8 and 10-13 in the reply filed on 4/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
The instant claimed invention has the benefit of the earlier filing date of the 1/21/2020, corresponding to the parent application 16/748,463.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 in view of Okabe (US 20110080586 A1, because all the claim limitations of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-13 of the current application are rendered obvious by claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 in view of Okabe:
1. U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 patents a polarimeter for producing one or more material orientation images of a polished reflective sample using multiple independent polarization channels comprising:
a source of controlled electromagnetic radiation that produces a beam that propagates along a bistatic path terminating at an imaging detector with the polished reflective sample positioned there between (claims 1, 10, and 15);
a first polarization modulator positioned in the bistatic path preceding the polished reflective sample and configured to switch serially among multiple independent settings (claim 1);
a second polarization modulator, positioned in the bistatic path following the sample, configured to switch serially among multiple independent settings, wherein the combination of the settings of the first and the second polarization modulators defines an independent polarization channel (claim 1);
the imaging detector, positioned to receive electromagnetic radiation from the polished reflective sample transmitted through the second polarization modulator, wherein the imaging detector comprises pixels and produces a set of polarization images that are synchronized with the independent polarization channels formed by the first and second polarization modulators (claim 1; for synchronized, see corresponding to); and
a processor connected with a memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps the set of polarization images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of polarization images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate using a model (claim 1).
U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 doesn’t explicitly claim bistatic path.
Like U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 (and like the instant application), Okabe is directed to polarimetry and teaches a bistatic path (light source and detector in different positions in figure 12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed invention have bistatic path in order to provide flexibility with respect to the angle of detection and the positioning of the light source and detector.
2. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the multiple independent polarization channels comprise at least three independent polarization channels (claim 2).
3. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the setting of the first polarization modulator and the setting of the second polarization modulator are tunable (claim 3).
4. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the model uses a database of Mueller matrices of the samples with known material orientations (claim 1).
U.S. Patent No. 11867891 B2 doesn’t explicitly claim the using includes machine-learning algorithm training. Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measurement and testing to use machine-learning algorithms. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the using of the claimed invention to include machine-learning algorithm in order to save the time of human users.
6. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the sample is comprised of crystals and the orientation images are crystallographic-orientation images (claim 1).
7. The polarimeter of claim 6 wherein the crystals are uniaxial crystals and the crystallographic-orientation images are c-axis images (claims 5 and 1).
8. The polarimeter of claim 6 wherein the sample is metallic (claim 6).
10. The polarimeter of claim 8 wherein the sample is subjected to an external magnetic field (claim 7).
11. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the sample is curved or otherwise not flat (claim 9).
12. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the bistatic path comprises an arbitrary bistatic angle (figure 12 of Okabe; also see 112 rejection for interpretation).
13. The polarimeter of claim 1 wherein the polarimeter, excluding a sample assembly, is mounted on a tripod or other transportable platform (claim 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 is 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 1 reads, “with an arbitrary bistatic angle.” It’s unclear whether arbitrary refers to the angle being chosen without a specific reason (in which case, it isn’t clear which angles would be encompassed by this) or whether it refers to the angle being capable of being varied. The examiner searched the specification, but the term arbitrary is not defined or explicitly described with examples. This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claim to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as encompassing both of these possibilities.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chipman (US 20070146632 A1; cited by Applicant) in view of Abbott (US 20090262350 A1) and Sandstrom (US 5494829 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chipman teaches a polarimeter for producing one or more material orientation images of a sample using multiple independent polarization channels comprising (“rotating retarding polarimeter” and “Mueller matrix imaging polarimeter” in paragraph 102):
a source (source) of controlled electromagnetic radiation that produces a beam that propagates along a bistatic path (since the source and detector are in different positions in figure 7) the terminating at an imaging detector (CCD detector in paragraph 102) with the reflective sample (reflected in paragraph 102) positioned there between (figure 7 and paragraph 102);
a first polarization modulator (P1 and R1) positioned in the bistatic path preceding the reflective sample and configured to switch serially among multiple independent settings (paragraph 102; “the two retarder are rotated to a series of more than 16 positions ….retarder one is moved by a small angle such as 4.degree. between measurements and retarder two is moved by five times the angle, such as 20.degree.” in paragraph 102);
an electromagnetic-radiation collector (the sample facing side of the optics that are to the right of the sample in figure 7; “The polarization analyzer is positioned to collect the desired beam” in paragraph 102) positioned to direct electromagnetic radiation reflected from or transmitted by the sample to a second polarization modulator independent of the first polarization modulator (paragraph 102);
the second polarization modulator (P2 and R2) positioned in the bistatic path following the sample (figure 7), configured to switch serially among multiple independent settings, wherein the combination of the settings of the first and second polarization modulators defines an independent polarization channel (paragraph 102; “the two retarder are rotated to a series of more than 16 positions ….retarder one is moved by a small angle such as 4.degree. between measurements and retarder two is moved by five times the angle, such as 20.degree.” in paragraph 102);
the imaging detector (CCD detector), positioned to receive electromagnetic radiation from the reflective sample transmitted through the second polarization modulator, wherein the imaging detector comprises pixels and produces a set of polarization images that are spatially registered polarization and synchronized with the independent polarization channels formed by the first and second polarization modulators (figure 7 and paragraph 102; since intensity is detected at each individual detection element/pixel of CCD, which has a fixed and known spatial location with respect to the others; since each image is associated with the modulator settings that were in place when the image was recorded; “image is acquired by the CCD at each position” in paragraph 102); and
a processor connected with a memory (paragraphs 102, 110, and 114), wherein the processor is configured to execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps the set of polarization images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of polarization images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate (since it determines orientations based on images; paragraphs 102, 110, and 114; “classified on the basis of their form, magnitude, orientation” in paragraph 108; “variations in the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules” in paragraph 110),
wherein the polarimeter is arranged in a bistatic geometry (since the source and detector are in different positions in figure 7) with an arbitrary bistatic angle (the angle is 180 degrees; also see 112 rejection above)
PNG
media_image1.png
447
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers Chipman as teaching the above limitations. Alternatively, if one were to consider Chipman as not teaching “execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps the set of spatially registered images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of spatially registered images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate using a model,” Abbott teaches a similar invention that comprises a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps the set of spatially registered images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of spatially registered images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate (“The analyzing polarizer is then automatically controlled and incrementally rotated, with an image of the liquid crystal cell taken at each increment. The images are subsequently processed using an algorithm which determines the orientation of the liquid crystal at the analyte surface with respect to the polarizer (and thus the reference surface) of the microscope for each picture element (pixel). The output is a matrix representing angles of orientation of the liquid crystal. In certain embodiments, this matrix can be visualized as a false color image” in paragraph 34). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of Chipman execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps the set of spatially registered images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of spatially registered images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate using a model in order to provide precise images of the variation of the sample’s orientation with spatial location.
The above embodiment doesn’t explicitly teach the reflective sample is polished. However, in another embodiment, Chipman suggests the reflective sample is polished (smooth metal in paragraph 108 suggests polished, especially in terms of the claimed structure as it suggests specular reflection, as evidenced by Sandstrom, column 15, lines 10-15, which is also concerned with polarimeters). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the reflective sample is polished in order to determine the spatial variations of smooth metallic samples of interest (also see the additional prior art section, below).
Regarding claim 2, Chipman teaches the multiple independent polarization channels comprise at least three independent polarization channels (paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 3, Chipman teaches the setting of the first polarization modulator and the setting of the second polarization modulator are tunable (paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 5, Chipman teaches the beam is incident on the sample at a small angle and all pixels of the material orientation images are obtained in parallel (figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Chipman teaches the sample is comprised of crystals and the orientation images are crystallographic-orientation images (paragraphs 102 and 110).
Regarding claim 8, in the above combination the sample is metallic (Chipman: paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 11, in the above combination the sample is curved or otherwise not flat (ridges in the metal in paragraph 108 of Chipman).
Regarding claim 12, in the above combination the bistatic path comprises an arbitrary bistatic angle (Chipman: paragraphs 102 and 108 and figure 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chipman, Abbott, and Sandstrom, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Marquardt (US 20100280765 A1) and Carrieri (US 7737399 B1).
Regarding claim 4¸Chipman doesn’t explicitly teach the model is a machine-learning algorithm trained on a database of Mueller matrices of the samples with known material orientations.
Marquardt teaches a similar invention comprising a processor connected with a memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps using a model that is a machine-learning algorithm trained on a database (paragraphs 53; , optical input parameters for known materials are collected to generate a thruthed database … a subset of the data in the thruthed database is selected to train a discrimination or classification algorithm. … and a machine learning methodology” in paragraph 53 … “Mueller matrix of the material may provide greater discrimination ability” in paragraph 72). Similarly, Carrieri is directed to a similar invention and teaches the model is a machine-learning algorithm trained on a database of Mueller matrices of the samples (column 2, lines 60-65, since neural network modelling is a type of machine learning).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chipman such that the model is a machine-learning algorithm trained on a database of Mueller matrices of the samples with known material orientations in order to obtain more precise and accurate determinations by utilizing the results of previous measurements done on known samples with known properties (also see additional prior art).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chipman, Abbott, and Sandstrom, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Arteaga (Mueller matrix polarimetry of bianisotropic materials).
Regarding claim 7, Chipman doesn’t explicitly teach the crystals are uniaxial crystals and the crystallographic-orientation images are c-axis images.
Like Chipman (and like the instant application, Arteaga is directed to polarimetry and teaches the crystals are uniaxial crystals (page F78).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the crystals are uniaxial crystals and the crystallographic-orientation images are c-axis images (the relevant orientation in uniaxial crystals) in order to be able to measure the orientation of a wide variety of crystals including uniaxial crystals, which is desired in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chipman, Abbott, and Sandstrom, as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Okabe (US 20110080586 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chipman doesn’t explicitly teach the sample is subjected to an external magnetic field.
Like Chipman (and like the instant application), Okabe is directed to polarimetry and teaches a sample is subjected to an external magnetic field (paragraph 6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the sample is subjected to an external magnetic field in order to investigate anisotropies created by the magnetic field on the material of interest.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chipman, Abbott, and Sandstrom, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kouns (US 4560279 A).
Regarding claim 13, Chipman doesn’t explicitly teach the polarimeter, excluding a sample assembly, is mounted on a tripod or other transportable platform.
Like Chipman (and like the instant application), Kouns is directed to a polarimeter and teaches the polarimeter, excluding a sample assembly, is mounted on a tripod or other transportable platform (column 17, lines 20-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the polarimeter, excluding a sample assembly, is mounted on a tripod or other transportable platform in order to make the positioning of the polarimeter adjustable while still securing it in the desired position during measurement.
Additional Prior Art
Marquardt (US 20100280765 A1) teaches a similar invention comprising a processor connected with a memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a classification algorithm stored in the memory that maps using a model (paragraphs 53; , optical input parameters for known materials are collected to generate a thruthed database … a subset of the data in the thruthed database is selected to train a discrimination or classification algorithm. … and a machine learning methodology” in paragraph 53 … “Mueller matrix of the material may provide greater discrimination ability” in paragraph 72);
US 5096862 A reads, “’ceramic’ means an inorganic nonmetallic material, such as metal oxides, metal nitrides, and metal oxynitrides, consolidated by the action of heat;”
US 20170225257 A1 reads, “[0003] Welding of metals products such as stainless steel products may result in heat tint discoloration in the heat-affected zone of the stainless steel weld. The heat tinting is generally a thickening of the naturally occurring oxide layer on the surface of stainless steel.”
“US 5711474 A reads, “For the maximum resistance to corrosion, the stainless steel surfaces should be from surfaces oxides. These oxides may be in the form of heat tint resulting from welding on the reverse side, or on the weld, or in the heat affected zone (HAZ).”
US 3125471 A reads, “Thin oxide coatings obtained by various means through heat tinting of stainless steel.”
US 20020051564 A1 reads, “A database is thus obtained which contains the classification of the reference signatures and which permits faulty parts to be assigned to the diffraction/scattered light images of the surfaces of test specimens from the production (measuring signatures). By using this database it is thus then possible to train a classifying system, for example a neural network with learning capability and further to carry out a classification into "good" and "bad." The measurements with the electron microscope can be eliminated. Finer classifications into a plurality of classes (for example direction of the deviations) can also be carried out. Furthermore, the effects of deviations of various parameters can be separated and also integrated into the classification model (the database simply has to be large enough for that, for example several hundred test specimens).” (paragraph 52)
US 6389408 B1 reads, “The present invention is a neural network pattern recognition system that trains a processor to recognize chemical and biological polarized light back-scattering information from an infrared excitation. Neural network pattern recognition via DIAMMS involves the digital acquisition of raw scattergrams in the form of the sensor's output voltage waveform, the electronic transformation of the scattergrams into elements of the Mueller matrix, the Mueller matrix element subtraction and auto-scaling, and mathematical filtration operations that select and process susceptible normalized elements from a field of 15, i.e., the feature detection domains. Feed-forwarding of these discriminating matrix difference elements, along with statistics and header data, through the input layer of a trained neural network system produces real numbers at the network output layer nodes. The numerical range of nodal outputs is usually bounded by the network transfer function, or synapse, fully connecting nodes between layers and responsible for internodal signal conduction, in the form of firing of neurons. By performing normalized inner products of this output vector with the network training set of output vectors, and by comparing the result to a selected threshold limit, such as 0.98 to 1.00, a deciding line for a detection event is created. The entire decision making process, from digital data acquisition to pattern recognition, may be accomplished in subsecond time frames. … the known data comprises artificial neural network systems built for detecting amino acids, sugars, and other solid organic compounds by pattern recognition of their polarized light scattering signatures.” and “In Table 2, the Neural network transform functions of the trained network are presented, built from a database of 16 biosimulants in the format of Table 1”
US 7218398 B2 reads, “This invention relates generally to apparatus and technique for measuring parameters of a liquid crystal cell, and particularly to apparatus and method for measuring thickness of a liquid crystal layer (cell gap), twist angle that liquid crystal molecules undergo across a thickness of the liquid crystal layer, orientation (rubbing direction) of the liquid crystal molecules at the boundaries of the liquid crystal layer and glass faces of the cell, and tilt angle (pre-tilt) between the liquid crystal molecules and an adjacent glass panel surface.”
“FIG. 3 illustrates basic elements of the current invention. A polarization state generator 10 creates an optical beam 12 having time-varying polarization states. This beam interacts with sample 14, in this case an LCD screen, causing some or all of the polarization states of beam 12 to be altered. The altered polarization states are analyzed by a polarization state analyzer 16. Polarization state analyzer 16 measures a time-varying sequence of polarization states,”
PNG
media_image2.png
711
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Azzam (US 4,306,809; cited by Applicant) discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
605
811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Goldstein (US 5,247,176) discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
966
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FR 2893428 A1 is directed to a polarimeter with imaging for inspecting highly reflective metallic surfaces having raised patterns and reads, “the inspection of surfaces of highly reflective metallic objects obtained by stamping and polishing.
Okabe (US 20110080586 A1) reads 0006] When light in some state of polarization is incident on an object to be measured to acquire outgoing light such as transparent light or reflected light
[0022] Moreover, there are mainly two kinds of methods as follows for investigating properties of an unknown sample by use of the channeled spectropolarimetry: [A] light is reflected on the sample, and by use of an SOP of light acquired from the reflected light, the properties of the sample is investigated; and [B] light is transmitted through the sample, and by use of an SOP of light acquired from the transmitted light, the properties of the light are investigated. The foregoing retardation variation can also be seen in each of those cases. In the following, each of those cases is described. When light in a certain polarization state is incident on the object under test and output light such as transmitted light or reflected light is obtained,
PNG
media_image5.png
322
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CN 1774721 A reads, “For reflection-based analysis application, mainly to the selected substrate is to ensure only reflected on the upper surface. the surface of rigid material (such as glass and a semiconductor material, such as silicon, metal, etc.) if it is polished, are smooth enough, it can provide specular reflection.”
Regarding Tyo (Design and optimization of partial Mueller matrix polarimeters), the following is from the Office Action with respect to the parent application 16/748,463:
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the mapping is done using an electrodynamic model; there are no more than ten independent polarization channels.
Arteaga is directed to a similar invention and teaches mapping maps the set of polarization images to the one or more material orientation images by mapping a set of values for each detector pixel corresponding to the set of polarization images to a value of material orientation at each pixel coordinate using a model, wherein the model maps a measured partial Mueller matrix of the sample to the one or more material orientation images wherein the model is an electrodynamic model (pages 76-79; page 79, first column, second paragraph; page 76, first column)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chipman such that the classification algorithm includes mappings that use electrodynamic models in order to obtain more precise and accurate determinations by utilizing one’s understanding of the physics of the samples in interpreting the measurements.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the multiple independent polarization channels are tuned to measure a partial Mueller matrix of the sample that is specified according to a priori Mueller matrices known from a model or measurement corresponding to the sample or a sample type; wherein the model maps the measured partial Mueller matrix of the sample to the one or more material orientation images; there are no more than ten independent polarization channels.
Tyo is directed to a similar polarimeter and teaches wherein the multiple independent polarization channels are tuned (4 generators/analyzer pairs in section 4) to measure a partial Mueller matrix of the sample (section 4B1) that is specified according to a priori Mueller matrices known from a model or measurement corresponding to the sample or a sample type (section 4A); wherein the model maps the measured partial Mueller matrix of the sample to the characteristics of the sample that one is interested in (section 4); a similar invention comprising collecting a set of no more than ten polarized images using a polarimeter of claim 1 tuned to no more than ten corresponding channels (four in section 4B1). Additionally, Tyo teaches this provides the benefit of accurately measuring the subset of matrix elements that one is interested in with as few measurements as possible (section 4, page 2329) and facilitating increased speed and greater miniaturization (abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the multiple independent polarization channels are tuned to measure a partial Mueller matrix of the sample that is specified according to a priori Mueller matrices known from a model or measurement corresponding to the sample or a sample type; wherein the model maps the measured partial Mueller matrix of the sample to the one or more material orientation images; and using no more than ten independent polarization channels. A person would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately measure the subset of matrix elements that one is interested in with as few measurements as possible and facilitate increased speed and greater miniaturization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights