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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 8/25/2026.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that de Groot does not teach the newly claimed condenser, collector, and polarizer; however, this is not persuasive. Interferometer 51 does or can contain a condenser (FIG. 1, first lens component 55), collector (FIG. 1, second lens component 56), and polarizer (paragraph 80, last sentence). While the polarizer is disclosed to be part of the light source rather than positioned between the condenser and collector, merely rearranging the parts of a prior art device is generally considered obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Applicant’s second argument is that it would not have been obvious to add a polarizer to de Groot in the claimed position due to de Groot already teaching polarized light sources; however, this argument is not persuasive. Many of the types of light sources taught by de Groot in paragraph 79 do not naturally produce polarized light, so achieving polarized input light from such a source would require placing a polarizer somewhere in the optical path. Paragraph 80 explicitly mentions placing a polarizer as part of the light source, but merely rearranging the polarizer to a different position in a way that produces identical results would have been obvious.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-16, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Groot (US Patent Publication 20150002852).
Regarding claim 1, de Groot teaches a system comprising:
an illumination source configured to emit light along an illumination path (FIG. 1, source 54);
a first beam splitter disposed in the illumination path (FIG. 1, polarizing beam splitter 60) and configured to direct a portion of the light toward a sample (FIG. 1, measurement object 53) and direct another portion of the light along a reference path (FIG. 1, toward reference object 61), wherein the sample reflects the light along a collection path (FIG. 1, beam extending upward from measurement object 53);
a condenser disposed in the illumination path between the illumination source and the first beam splitter (FIG. 1, first lens component 55);
a collector disposed in the illumination path between the condenser and the first beam splitter (FIG. 1, second lens component 56);
a polarizer disposed in the illumination path (paragraph 80, final sentence);
a reference surface (FIG. 1, reference object 61) disposed in the reference path and configured to reflect the light back to the first beam splitter to be recombined with the light reflected by the sample in the collection path (FIG. 1, above beam splitter 60);
n detectors disposed in the collection path, where n ≥ 2 (FIG. 1, first detector 66 and second detector 67);
at least one second beam splitter disposed in the collection path and configured to direct n portions of the light toward the n detectors (FIG. 1, beam splitter 65), respectively, wherein each of the n portions of the light have a preset phase shift (paragraph 5);
a processor in electronic communication with the n detectors that is configured to receive intensities of the n portions of the light measured by the n detectors, respectively (FIG. 1, computer control system 52); and
a motor in electronic communication with the processor and configured to move the reference surface between the plurality of signal collection positions along an axis between the first beam splitter and the reference surface (paragraph 73 describes implementations in which changes in optical path length difference (OPD) is effected by moving reference object 61. Moving reference object 61 in such a way as to change the OPD would necessarily be along the axis between the polarizing beam splitter 60 and reference object 61. Also see paragraph 83, which lists a stepper motor as an appropriate means to translate the various translation stages in the system, with translation stage 70 only used as an example), wherein the processor is configured to control at least one of the n detectors to capture measurements at the plurality of signal collection positions (FIG. 1, computer 52. Also see paragraph 82);
wherein the reference surface is movable between a plurality of signal collection positions to vary a length of the reference path between the first beam splitter and the reference surface, and the processor is further configured to calculate an interferogram envelope based on the intensities of the n portions of the light measured by the n detectors at at least two of the plurality of signal collection positions (paragraph 73, first half of sentence 3, moving reference object 61. Note that modifying the optical path length difference (OPD) between light that travels along the reference arm and the measurement arm by moving the reference object means varying the length of the reference arm from the first beam splitter 60 to the reference object 61 in a way not counteracted by corresponding changes to the measurement arm.).
While de Groot does teach a polarizer disposed in the illumination path (paragraph 80, final sentence), de Groot does not explicitly teach that the polarizer is between the condenser and the collector, instead teaching it as part of the light source 54 (paragraph 80).
Mere rearrangement of parts is generally insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 VI C), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of de Groot by placing the polarizer between first lens element 55 and second lens element 56 as an equivalent way to provide polarized illumination to the interferometer with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one second beam splitter comprises at least one polarizing beam splitter configured polarize at least one of the n portions of the light (FIG. 1, the combination of beam-splitter 65, first polarizer 68, and second polarizer 69 splits the beam into polarized beams) to have the preset phase shift (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 3, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising polarization elements disposed between the at least one second beam splitter and at least one of the n detectors, wherein the polarization elements are configured polarize at least one of the n portions of the light (FIG. 1, first polarizer 68 and second polarizer 69 splits the beam into polarized beams) to have the preset phase shift (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 4, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor is configured to calculate the interferogram envelope (paragraph 85) based on the intensities of the n portions of the light measured by the n detectors at 3 or more of the signal collection positions (paragraph 11 says that scan positions may be separated by uniform or non-uniform scan intervals, which only makes sense if there are three or more different scan positions (resulting in two or more intervals that can be equal (uniform) or unequal (non-uniform))).
Regarding claim 5, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor is further configured to determine a height of the sample based on a maximum value of the interferogram envelope (paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 7, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the motor (paragraph 83, translation stage that scans reference object 61) is further configured to move one or more optical components to keep the sample in focus while the reference surface moves between the plurality of signal collection positions (paragraph 73, choosing to configure the system to only move reference object 61 would leave the sample in focus. Also see paragraphs 81-83).
Regarding claim 10, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the n detectors are positioned such that each of the n portions of the light have the preset phase shift (FIG. 1, first detector 66 receives a signal shifted in phase relative to the signal of second detector 67 due to first detector 66 being disposed behind first polarizer 68, whereas second detector 67 is disposed behind second polarizer 69. Note that simply introducing a difference between optical path lengths from the at least one second beam splitter to the respective detectors would not introduce a measurable difference in the phase of the measurement signals within the scope of the present disclosure, as the difference in optical path length required would be based on the distance that light can travel between frames recorded by the generic CCD cameras of the present disclosure, which would be quite a long distance. This is different from the optical path length differences between the reference and sample paths, required to produce interference fringes, which are based on wavelengths of light (e.g., hundreds of nanometers).).
Regarding claim 11, de Groot teaches a method comprising:
emitting light with an illumination source along an illumination path (FIG. 1, source 54);
directing the light through a condenser (FIG. 1, first lens component 55), a polarizer (paragraph 80, final sentence), and a collector (FIG. 1, second lens component 56) toward a first beam splitter (FIG. 1, polarizing beam splitter 60), wherein the polarizer is disposed along the illumination path (paragraph 80, the light source 54 is in the illumination path);
directing a portion of the light toward a sample with the first beam splitter disposed in the illumination path (FIG. 1, polarizing beam splitter 60), wherein the sample reflects the light along a collection path (FIG. 1, measurement object 53);
directing another portion of the light along a reference path with the first beam splitter (FIG. 1, from beam splitter 60 to reference object 61),
wherein a reference surface disposed in the reference path reflects the light back to the first beam splitter and is recombined with the light reflected by the sample in the collection path (FIG. 1, reference object 61);
directing n portions of the light toward n detectors (FIG. 1, first detector 66 and second detector 67), respectively, with at least one second beam splitter disposed in the collection path (FIG. 1, beam splitter 65), wherein each of the n portions of the light have a preset phase shift and n ≥ 2 (FIG. 1 shows a case with n=2);
measuring intensities of the n portions of the light received by the n detectors, respectively (paragraph 5);
moving the reference surface between a plurality of signal collection positions along an axis between the first beam splitter and the reference surface to vary a length of the reference path between the first beam splitter and the reference surface (paragraph 73, first half of sentence 3, moving reference object 61. Note that modifying the optical path length difference (OPD) between light that travels along the reference arm and the measurement arm by moving the reference object means varying the length of the reference arm from the first beam splitter 60 to the reference object 61 in a way not counteracted by corresponding changes to the measurement arm. Varying the length of the reference arm by moving reference object 61 requires moving reference object along the axis between beam splitter 60 and reference object 61, as transverse movement would not substantially change the optical path length or the OPD dependent thereon); and
calculating, using a processor (FIG. 1, computer control system 52), an interferogram envelope based on the intensities of the n portions of the light measured by the n detectors at at least two of the plurality of signal collection positions (paragraph 73, moving the reference object 61).
While de Groot does teach a polarizer disposed in the illumination path (paragraph 80, final sentence), de Groot does not explicitly teach that the polarizer is between the condenser and the collector, instead teaching it as part of the light source 54 (paragraph 80).
Mere rearrangement of parts is generally insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 VI C), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometry method of de Groot by placing the polarizer between first lens element 55 and second lens element 56 as an equivalent way to provide polarized illumination to the interferometer with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the at least one second beam splitter comprises at least one polarizing beam splitter (FIG. 1, the combination of beam-splitter 65, first polarizer 68, and second polarizer 69 splits the beam into polarized beams, collectively forming a polarizing beam splitter), and the method further comprises:
polarizing, with the at least one second beam splitter, at least one of the n portions of the light to have the preset phase shift (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 13, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein polarization elements are disposed between the at least one second beam splitter and at least one of the n detectors (FIG. 1, first polarizer 68 and second polarizer 69 splits the beam into polarized beams), and the method further comprises:
polarizing, with the polarization elements, at least one of the n portions of the light to have the preset phase shift (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 14, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the processor is configured to calculate the interferogram envelope based on the intensities of the n portions of the light measured by the n detectors at 3 or more of the signal collection positions (paragraph 11 says that scan positions may be separated by uniform or non-uniform scan intervals, which only makes sense if there are three or more different scan positions (resulting in two or more intervals that can be equal (uniform) or unequal (non-uniform))).
Regarding claim 15, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the processor is configured to control at least one of the n detectors to capture measurements at the plurality of signal collection positions (FIG. 1, computer 52. Also see paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 16, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), further comprising:
moving one or more optical components to keep the sample in focus while the reference surface moves between the plurality of signal collection positions (paragraph 73, choosing to configure the system to only move reference object 61 would leave the sample in focus. Also see paragraphs 81-83).
Regarding claim 19, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), wherein the n detectors are positioned such that each of the n portions of the light have the preset phase shift (FIG. 1, first detector 66 receives a signal shifted in phase relative to the signal of second detector 67 due to first detector 66 being disposed behind first polarizer 68, whereas second detector 67 is disposed behind second polarizer 69. Note that simply introducing a difference between optical path lengths from the at least one second beam splitter to the respective detectors would not introduce a measurable difference in the phase of the measurement signals within the scope of the present disclosure, as the difference in optical path length required would be based on the distance that light can travel between frames recorded by the generic CCD cameras of the present disclosure, which would be quite a long distance. This is different from the optical path length differences between the reference and sample paths, required to produce interference fringes, which are based on wavelengths of light (e.g., hundreds of nanometers).).
Regarding claim 20, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above), further comprising:
determining a height of the sample based on a maximum value of the interferogram envelope (paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 21, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
While de Groot does not explicitly teach that n ≥ 3, de Groot does teach multiple values of phase-shift as options (paragraph 72, final sentence, 90 degrees and 180 degrees are listed as options). Including a third detector, along with an additional beam splitter and polarizer as needed, would allow de Groot to capture a first interferogram along with additional interferograms shifted from that first interferogram in phase by both 90 degrees and 180 degrees, increasing the amount of data available to analyze.
Merely duplicating parts does not generally patentably distinguish over the prior art, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interferometer of de Groot by including one or more additional detectors with preset phase shifts to cover more values of phase shifts simultaneously, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
While de Groot does not explicitly teach that n ≥ 3, de Groot does teach multiple values of phase-shift as options (paragraph 72, final sentence, 90 degrees and 180 degrees are listed as options). Including a third detector, along with an additional beam splitter and polarizer as needed, would allow de Groot to capture a first interferogram along with additional interferograms shifted from that first interferogram in phase by both 90 degrees and 180 degrees, increasing the amount of data available to analyze.
Merely duplicating parts does not generally patentably distinguish over the prior art, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interferometry method of de Groot by including one or more additional detectors with preset phase shifts to cover more values of phase shifts simultaneously, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the motor is configured only to move the reference surface between the plurality of signal collection positions (paragraph 73, sentence 3, first half).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Groot (US patent publication 20150002852) in view of Ko (US patent publication 20090278965).
Regarding claim 8, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 6 (as described above).
While de Groot does not explicitly teach that the motor is configured to move the reference surface at a constant speed, de Groot does present varying the scan speed as an option that may be allowed (paragraph 83) and lists some exemplary scan speeds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not chosen the option presented by de Groot of varying the scan speed, instead opting to maintain a constant scan speed, perhaps at one of the rates listed by de Groot or perhaps at a different speed, which de Groot describes as possible as well.
De Groot does not teach that the processor is configured to control the n detectors to capture measurements at different times to create the preset phase shift between each of the n portions of the light.
In the same field of endeavor of using multiple imaging systems to collect imaging data of a single subject, Ko teaches using a plurality of cameras controlled to interleave when they capture images (FIG. 2, with two cameras, as contrasted with the single camera of FIG. 1). By doing this, Ko captures images at offset times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of de Groot with the time-offset imaging with multiple imaging devices of Ko in order to create a phase offset by imaging the combined interference light at different times.
Regarding claim 9, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 1 (as described above).
De Groot does not teach that the processor is configured to control the n detectors to capture measurements at different signal collection positions to create the preset phase shift between each of the n portions of the light.
In the same field of endeavor of using multiple imaging systems to collect imaging data of a single subject, Ko teaches using a plurality of cameras controlled to interleave when they capture images (FIG. 2, with two cameras, as contrasted with the single camera of FIG. 1). By doing this, Ko captures images at offset times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of de Groot with the time-offset imaging with multiple imaging devices of Ko in order to create a phase offset by imaging the combined interference light at different times.
Regarding claim 17, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
De Groot does not teach that the processor is configured to control the n detectors to capture measurements at different times to create the preset phase shift between the n portions of the light.
In the same field of endeavor of using multiple imaging systems to collect imaging data of a single subject, Ko teaches using a plurality of cameras controlled to interleave when they capture images (FIG. 2, with two cameras, as contrasted with the single camera of FIG. 1). By doing this, Ko captures images at offset times.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometry method of de Groot with the time-offset imaging with multiple imaging devices of Ko in order to create a phase offset by imaging the combined interference light at different times.
Regarding claim 18, de Groot teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 11 (as described above).
De Groot does not teach that the processor is configured to control the n detectors to capture measurements at different signal collection positions to create the preset phase shift between the n portions of the light.
In the same field of endeavor of using multiple imaging systems to collect imaging data of a single subject, Ko teaches using a plurality of cameras controlled to interleave when they capture images (FIG. 2, with two cameras, as contrasted with the single camera of FIG. 1). By doing this, Ko captures images at offset times.
Note that, when an object, such as a reference surface, is moving, taking images at different times directly corresponds to taking images at different positions of the moving object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometry method of de Groot with the time- (and, correspondingly, space-) offset imaging with multiple imaging devices of Ko in order to create a phase offset by imaging the combined interference light at different spatial positions of the reference object.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
