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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-11 that Bruun-Larsen does not teach a platelike body that receives the primary light and deflects a portion of it, or a measuring device that receives the deflected portion.
Examiner’s position is that Bruun-Larsen teaches a platelike body that receives the primary light and divides it into a primary beam and a secondary beam (Figure 1, elements 4 & 5), and it is the addition of Klein that is used to teach the primary beam goes through and the secondary beam is perpendicular to the primary beam (Figure 2, elements 34 & 35). Examiner acknowledges that the combination may not be readily apparent and the Bruun-Larsen does not obviously teach measuring the deflected portion. However, while the examiner gives examples within the rejection to help clarify the position of the office, it is the combination of references and teachings that have been combined that is applied to the claim as a whole. In this case the invention of Bruun-Larsen as modified by Klein reads on the claimed limitation, where Bruun-Larsen teaches the concept of ‘take out part of the main beam and measure it’ (Figure 1) and Klein teaching ‘the main beam goes straight and a portion is diverted to the side then measured’ (Figure 1, elements 35 & 20) as described in the office action paragraph 15. As such the rejection is being maintained.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the instant invention has the ability to capture light from any direction.
Examiner’s position is that such a limitation is not described in the claims.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Klein does not teach deflecting a secondary beam that is a predetermined portion of the primary beam.
Examiner’s position is that the cited Klein 6:2-5 is directed to an increasing amount of deflected radiation because of increasing contamination. Klein 5:32-6:1 discusses a proportionality factor “This scattered radiation depends on the optical properties of the material and is proportional to the incident light. The proportionality is described by a proportionality factor, which can be determined by optical measurement.” This indicates that for any given deflection element the proportionality factor is known (much like a resistor is measured then labeled), and the claimed “predetermined” is interpreted as ‘of all the deflection elements available I choose one with a factor that is appropriate for what I’m doing’. The source of the proportionality factor is not relevant to determining which deflection element to use before turning the invention on.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that there is no motivation to substitute Klein into the invention of Schlieth as modified by Bruun-Larsen.
Examiner’s position is that the invention of Bruun-Larsen is directed to measuring a portion of a light beam, and the invention of Klein is directed to measuring a portion of a light beam. As the invention of Bruun-Larsen causes an offset between the first beam (Figure 1, element 2) and the output beam (Figure 1, element 7) and requires the calibration and stability of multiple elements (i.e. the light source, the beamsplitter and the second mirror), one looking to improve the invention would obviously encounter the invention of Klein, which has a single element with the beam passing straight through it.
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that there is no motivation to use the deflection element of Klein in the invention of Bruun-Larsen.
Examiner’s position is that Bruun-Larsen is not used as a standalone reference and it the combination of Schlieth as modified by Bruun-Larsen that makes the addition of Klein obvious (see above).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: the claim introduces a “second device” then refers to “the second illumination device”. The examiner interprets “the second illumination device” as “the second device”, but for the sake of consistency an element should always be referred to by its full & original designation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleith et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230419471) in view of Bruun-Larsen et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20020141463) in view of Klein et al (DE 19507401), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “SBK”.
As to claim 1, Schleith teaches an apparatus for detecting surface defects in objects (Abstract “A surface inspection system for capturing surface defects of a surface”), the apparatus comprising:
one or more illumination devices (Figure 1, paragraph 0118 “light source L1”) configured to emit at least a light radiation along at least an optical axis (Figure 1, paragraph 0120 “light beam L”) and illuminate an object to be inspected (Figure 1, paragraph 0118 “surface O to be checked”).
Schleith does not teach a measuring device configured to measure the light radiation received by the object, and comprising at least a platelike body arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object, the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor optically coupled to the at least a platelike body and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Bruun-Larsen. Bruun-Larsen teaches a beam power monitoring system (Figure 1 & Abstract “measuring the power of the secondary output beam provides a precise measure for the power of the primary output beam”) including a measuring device (Figure 1, paragraph 0047 “dielectrically coated mirror 3 (a beamsplitter)”) configured to measure the light radiation received by the object (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”), and comprising at least a platelike body (Figure 1, paragraph 0047 “beamsplitter 3“) arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object (Figure 1, element 3 is in the axis of the light coming from light source 1), the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “detector 8”) optically coupled to the at least a platelike body (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5 … is fed into a detector 8”) and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate (paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5, on the other hand, is fed into a detector 8 for measuring the power of the secondary output light beam 5.”) and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received (paragraph 0049 “Since the power of the secondary output light beam 5 constitutes a substantially fixed percentage of the power of the primary output light beam 7, the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a measuring device configured to measure the light radiation received by the object, and comprising at least a platelike body arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object, the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor optically coupled to the at least a platelike body and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received, in order to better keep the light source output consistent for more accurate brightness contrast measurements.
Schleith as modified by Bruun-Larsen above does not teach the platelike body comprises a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Klein. Klein teaches a beam monitoring system (Figure 1, Abstract “a measuring system (16) for laser light extracted from an optically transparent component (15), a signal evaluating unit (17), a generator (18) of reference values proportional to the laser output power”) including a platelike body (Figure 1, element 15, translation paragraph 74 “optically transparent component 15 in the form of a protective glass”),
wherein the platelike body comprises a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices (paragraph 76 “At microscopic inhomogeneities, which also occur with optimized materials, a change in the refractive index of the material as a result of Rayleigh scattering results in a deflection of a portion of the light from the preferred direction of the incident light. This scattered radiation depends on the optical properties of the material and is proportional to the incident light.” and Figure 1, paragraph 80 “the detector 20 measures a scattered radiation component 35 of the component 15”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the platelike body comprise a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices, in order to simplify the optical path by removing elements (that is, Bruun-Larsen has beamsplitter 3 and a mirror 6 to get the beam back in a desired direction, and by putting the plate of Klein in the place of the beamsplitter 3, mirror 6 can be removed).
As to claim 2, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the plate of optically active material is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) comprising colorless diffusive impurities. However, Klein teaches the use of an optically active material (paragraph 76 “This scattered radiation depends on the optical properties of the material”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use polymethyl methacrylate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In this case, while Klein teaches the use of glass, the invention of Schleith does not require the heat-resistant properties of the invention of Klein, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to look at other, cheaper & easier to shape materials.
As to claim 3, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Klein teaches the at least a platelike body is arranged so that an extension plane of the plate of optically active material is orthogonal to the optical axis (Figure 1, element 15 is orthogonal to the beam, paragraph 76 “The laser radiation impinging on component 15 … will traverse this component 15 according to arrow 34.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the at least a platelike body is arranged so that an extension plane of the plate of optically active material is orthogonal to the optical axis, in order to prevent unwanted deflection of the beam.
As to claim 4, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Schleith teaches the at least a light sensor is configured to receive a monochromatic light radiation (paragraph 0009 “The light according to an aspect of the disclosure may include one or more wavelengths”).
As to claim 5, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Schleith teaches the at least a light sensor is configured to receive a polychromatic light radiation (paragraph 0009 “The light according to an aspect of the disclosure may include one or more wavelengths or may include one or more wavelength ranges.”).
As to claim 6, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Klein teaches the measuring device comprises a single light sensor optically coupled to each platelike body (Figure 1, paragraph 78 “a detector 20 of a measuring device 16 is present”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises a single light sensor optically coupled to each platelike body, in order to minimize the necessary components.
As to claim 8, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition the invention of Schleith as modified by Bruun-Larsen above teaches the measuring device comprises a platelike body arranged at an intermediate position between a first illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a first surface (Schleith Figure 1 shows light source L directing light to object O, and the invention of Bruun-Larsen Figure 1 teaches placing the beam monitoring device between the light source 1 and the beam output 7, and the combination of these would read on the claimed placement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises a platelike body arranged at an intermediate position between a first illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a first surface, at which the object is placed, in order to monitor the intensity of the beam that is being used to take measurements.
While Schleith does not explicitly teach the surface has a support, at which the object is placed, Schleith does not teach the inspection of e.g. satellites or aircraft in motion so a surface would obviously have a support, at which the object is placed, in order to hold it steady while taking brightness measurements across the surface.
As to claim 10, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Bruun-Larsen teaches the measuring device comprises an electronic signal processing unit operatively coupled to the at least a light sensor, and configured to receive and process the detection signals and provide measurement signals indicative of the light radiation received by the object (paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5, on the other hand, is fed into a detector 8 for measuring the power of the secondary output light beam 5. The detector 8 produces an electrical feedback signal in response to the secondary output light beam 5. The electrical feedback signal is in turn communicated to the first light source 1. Since the power of the secondary output light beam 5 constitutes a substantially fixed percentage of the power of the primary output light beam 7, the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises an electronic signal processing unit operatively coupled to the at least a light sensor, and configured to receive and process the detection signals and provide measurement signals indicative of the light radiation received by the object, in order to speed the processing of the signal and give appropriate feedback to the light source.
As to claim 11, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Schleith teaches an image acquisition device (Figure 1, paragraph 0121 “camera K”) configured to acquire one or more images of the object, when illuminated by the one or more illumination devices (paragraph 0124 “the evaluation system therefore evaluates the image from the at least one camera K”).
As to claim 12, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 11, in addition Schleith teaches a data processor configured to process the images acquired by the image acquisition device and provide detection data indicative of the presence of surface defects on the object (paragraph 0095 “The evaluation system and the controller … typically include a microprocessor and a nonvolatile memory on which is stored a computer program having instructions which are executed on the microprocessor in order to make available the functions of the evaluation system and/or of the controller described in the context of the present application.”).
As to claim 13, Schleith teaches an object inspection station (Abstract “A surface inspection system for capturing surface defects of a surface”) comprising: a detection apparatus for detecting surface defects in objects (Figure 1, paragraph 0102 “FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram concerning the dependence of the reflected quantity of light on the angle between camera, light source and position on the surface to be checked in the case of a first exemplary embodiment of a surface inspection system according to the present disclosure”), the apparatus comprising:
one or more illumination devices (Figure 1, paragraph 0118 “light source L1”) configured to emit at least a light radiation along at least an optical axis (Figure 1, paragraph 0120 “light beam L”) and illuminate an object to be inspected (Figure 1, paragraph 0118 “surface O to be checked”).
Schleith does not teach a measuring device configured to measure the light radiation received by the object, and comprising at least a platelike body arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object, the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor optically coupled to the at least a platelike body and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Bruun-Larsen. Bruun-Larsen teaches a beam power monitoring system (Figure 1 & Abstract “measuring the power of the secondary output beam provides a precise measure for the power of the primary output beam”) including a measuring device (Figure 1, paragraph 0047 “dielectrically coated mirror 3 (a beamsplitter)”) configured to measure the light radiation received by the object (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”), and comprising at least a platelike body (Figure 1, paragraph 0047 “beamsplitter 3“) arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object (Figure 1, element 3 is in the axis of the light coming from light source 1), the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “detector 8”) optically coupled to the at least a platelike body (Figure 1, paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5 … is fed into a detector 8”) and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate (paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5, on the other hand, is fed into a detector 8 for measuring the power of the secondary output light beam 5.”) and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received (paragraph 0049 “Since the power of the secondary output light beam 5 constitutes a substantially fixed percentage of the power of the primary output light beam 7, the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a measuring device configured to measure the light radiation received by the object, and comprising at least a platelike body arranged to intersect the optical axis and receive the light radiation with which the one or more illuminating devices illuminate the object, the measuring device further comprising at least a light sensor optically coupled to the at least a platelike body and configured to receive the portion of light radiation deflected by the plate and provide detection signals indicative of a light intensity of the light radiation so received, in order to better keep the light source output consistent for more accurate brightness contrast measurements.
Schleith as modified by Bruun-Larsen above does not teach the platelike body comprises a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Klein. Klein teaches a beam monitoring system (Figure 1, Abstract “a measuring system (16) for laser light extracted from an optically transparent component (15), a signal evaluating unit (17), a generator (18) of reference values proportional to the laser output power”) including a platelike body (Figure 1, element 15, translation paragraph 74 “optically transparent component 15 in the form of a protective glass”),
wherein the platelike body comprises a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices (paragraph 76 “At microscopic inhomogeneities, which also occur with optimized materials, a change in the refractive index of the material as a result of Rayleigh scattering results in a deflection of a portion of the light from the preferred direction of the incident light. This scattered radiation depends on the optical properties of the material and is proportional to the incident light.” and Figure 1, paragraph 80 “the detector 20 measures a scattered radiation component 35 of the component 15”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the platelike body comprise a plate of optically active material capable of deflecting, along an extension plane of the plate, a predetermined portion of the light radiation received from the one or more illumination devices, in order to simplify the optical path by removing elements (that is, Bruun-Larsen has beamsplitter 3 and a mirror 6 to get the beam back in a desired direction, and by putting the plate of Klein in the place of the beamsplitter 3, mirror 6 can be removed).
As to claim 14, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, with the exception of the plate of optically active material is made of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) comprising colorless diffusive impurities. However, Klein teaches the use of an optically active material (paragraph 76 “This scattered radiation depends on the optical properties of the material”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use polymethyl methacrylate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In this case, while Klein teaches the use of glass, the invention of Schleith does not require the heat-resistant properties of the invention of Klein, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to look at other, cheaper & easier to shape materials.
As to claim 15, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Klein teaches the at least a platelike body is arranged so that an extension plane of the plate of optically active material is orthogonal to the optical axis (Figure 1, element 15 is orthogonal to the beam, paragraph 76 “The laser radiation impinging on component 15 … will traverse this component 15 according to arrow 34.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the at least a platelike body is arranged so that an extension plane of the plate of optically active material is orthogonal to the optical axis, in order to prevent unwanted deflection of the beam.
As to claim 16, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition the invention of Schleith as modified by Bruun-Larsen above teaches the measuring device comprises a platelike body arranged at an intermediate position between a first illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a first surface (Schleith Figure 1 shows light source L directing light to object O, and the invention of Bruun-Larsen Figure 1 teaches placing the beam monitoring device between the light source 1 and the beam output 7, and the combination of these would read on the claimed placement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises a platelike body arranged at an intermediate position between a first illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a first surface, at which the object is placed, in order to monitor the intensity of the beam that is being used to take measurements.
While Schleith does not explicitly teach the surface has a support, at which the object is placed, Schleith does not teach the inspection of e.g. satellites or aircraft in motion so a surface would obviously have a support, at which the object is placed, in order to hold it steady while taking brightness measurements across the surface.
As to claim 18, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Bruun-Larsen teaches the measuring device comprises an electronic signal processing unit operatively coupled to the at least a light sensor, and configured to receive and process the detection signals and provide measurement signals indicative of the light radiation received by the object (paragraph 0049 “The secondary output light beam 5, on the other hand, is fed into a detector 8 for measuring the power of the secondary output light beam 5. The detector 8 produces an electrical feedback signal in response to the secondary output light beam 5. The electrical feedback signal is in turn communicated to the first light source 1. Since the power of the secondary output light beam 5 constitutes a substantially fixed percentage of the power of the primary output light beam 7, the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises an electronic signal processing unit operatively coupled to the at least a light sensor, and configured to receive and process the detection signals and provide measurement signals indicative of the light radiation received by the object, in order to speed the processing of the signal and give appropriate feedback to the light source.
As to claim 19, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 13, in addition Schleith teaches an image acquisition device (Figure 1, paragraph 0121 “camera K”) configured to acquire one or more images of the object, when illuminated by the one or more illumination devices (paragraph 0124 “the evaluation system therefore evaluates the image from the at least one camera K”).
As to claim 20, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 19, in addition Schleith teaches a data processor configured to process the images acquired by the image acquisition device and provide detection data indicative of the presence of surface defects on the object (paragraph 0095 “The evaluation system and the controller … typically include a microprocessor and a nonvolatile memory on which is stored a computer program having instructions which are executed on the microprocessor in order to make available the functions of the evaluation system and/or of the controller described in the context of the present application.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SBK, and in further view of Jurca (United States Patent 6118527).
As to claim 7, ABK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the measuring device comprises a plurality of light sensors optically coupled to each platelike body. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jurca. Jurca teaches monitoring light within a plate through which a beam passes (Abstract “A type of "light barrier" is used to monitor the functionality of the transparent protective element (5) of a transparent laser optical system”) where the measuring device comprises a plurality of light sensors optically coupled to each platelike body (Figure 1, column 5:47-48 “four photodiodes 16 are arranged, likewise at a spacing of 90.degree”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the measuring device comprises a plurality of light sensors optically coupled to each platelike body, in order to better obtain the entirety of the light that is deflected by the plate of Klein (who only detects light that is deflected towards the detector).
Claims 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SBK, and in further view of Nikoonahad et al (United States Patent 6694284) in view of Dau et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20230281781).
As to claim 9, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 8, with the exception of the one or more illumination devices comprises a second device, and the platelike body is arranged at the intermediate position further between the second illumination device and a second surface of the support, wherein the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface, and the support is made of optically transparent material.
Nikoonahad teaches an inspection system (Abstract “the system may be configured to determine multiple properties of a specimen including … a presence of macro defects”) in which the one or more illumination devices comprises a second device (Figure 12, column 38:5-6 “Energy source 44” and the upper element 44 is interpreted as the light source referred to in claim 1 and the lower element 44 is interpreted as the “second illumination source”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the one or more illumination devices comprises a second device, in order to have light from multiple directions.
SBK as modified by Nikoonahad above does not teach the platelike body is arranged at the intermediate position further between the second illumination device and a second surface of the support. However, Bruun-Larsen as modified by Klein above in claim 1 teaches measuring beam power (Bruun-Larsen paragraph 0049 “the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”) using a platelike body (Klein Figure 1) between the light source and the use of the light (Bruun-Larsen Figure 1, the beam monitoring device is between the light source 1 and the beam output 7), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have another platelike body be arranged at the intermediate position further between the second illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a second surface of the support, in order to monitor the output of all light sources and make more accurate brightness contrast tests.
SBK as modified by Nikoonahad above does not teach the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikoonahad. Nikoonahad teaches the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface (Figure 12, column 37:62 “specimen 40 disposed upon stage 42” with the specimen on the upper (first) surface and the second illumination source facing the lower (second) surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface, in order to have light from both directions and enable both bright field and dark field images to be taken (see column 5:20-42).
SBK as modified by Nikoonahad and Bruun-Larsen above does not teach the support is made of optically transparent material. However, it is known in the art as taught by Dau. Dau teaches an inspection system (Abstract “A system to inspect Dry Cosmetic contact lenses for defects”) with an object on a support where the support is made of optically transparent material (Figure 1, paragraph 0020 “contact lens 40 located on the glass plate 30”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the support be made of optically transparent material, in order to be able to take bright field images.
As to claim 17, SBK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 16, with the exception the platelike body is arranged at the intermediate position further between a second illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a second surface of the support, wherein the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface, and the support is made of optically transparent material.
SBK does not teach a second illumination device, nor that the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface. However, it is known in the art as taught by Nikoonahad. Nikoonahad teaches an inspection system (Abstract “the system may be configured to determine multiple properties of a specimen including … a presence of macro defects”) with two light sources (Figure 12, column 38:5-6 “Energy source 44” and the upper element 44 is interpreted as the light source referred to in claim 1 and the lower element 44 is interpreted as the “second illumination source”) wherein the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface (Figure 12, column 37:62 “specimen 40 disposed upon stage 42” with the specimen on the upper (first) surface and the second illumination source facing the lower (second) surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the object is placed at the first surface of the support opposite the second surface, in order to have light from both directions and enable both bright field and dark field images to be taken (see column 5:20-42).
SBK as modified by Nikoonahad does not teach the platelike body is arranged at the intermediate position further between the second illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a second surface of the support. However, Bruun-Larsen as modified by Klein above in claim 1 teaches measuring beam power (Bruun-Larsen paragraph 0049 “the measured power provides a measure of the power of the primary output light beam 7.”) using a platelike body (Klein Figure 1) between the light source and the use of the light (Bruun-Larsen Figure 1, the beam monitoring device is between the light source 1 and the beam output 7), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have another platelike body be arranged at the intermediate position further between the second illumination device of the one or more illumination devices and a second surface of the support, in order to monitor the output of all light sources and make more accurate brightness contrast tests.
SBK as modified by Nikoonahad and Bruun-Larsen above does not teach the support is made of optically transparent material. However, it is known in the art as taught by Dau. Dau teaches an inspection system (Abstract “A system to inspect Dry Cosmetic contact lenses for defects”) with an object on a support where the support is made of optically transparent material (Figure 1, paragraph 0020 “contact lens 40 located on the glass plate 30”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the support be made of optically transparent material, in order to be able to take bright field images.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877