Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 have been cancelled.
Drawings
2. The drawings filed on 11/27/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claim(s) 11, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0116332) in view of Nagahama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015/0204796). Hereafter “Wu” and “Nagahama”.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Wu teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first radiating source ([0198], lines 1-3; [0222]) configured to output a first beam (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, first beam 31. It is inherent that laser source 203 with laser 204 contains first light source to irradiate first beam 31);
a second radiating source ([0198], lines 1-3; [0222]) configured to output a second beam (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, second beam 32. It is inherent that laser source 203 with laser 204 contains second light source to irradiate second beam 32);
to direct the first beam and the second beam toward a time varying beam reflector (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, the first beam 31, the second beam 32, varying beam reflector 209), wherein the time varying beam reflector is configured to reflect the first beam and the second beam (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, the first beam 31, the second beam 32, time varying beam reflector 209) toward a scan lens (figure 1, lens 105);
a first reflector configured to reflect the first beam (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, first reflector 207, first beam 31);
a second reflector configured to reflect the second beam, wherein the second reflector is configured to not reflect the first beam (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, second reflector 208 configured to reflect the second beam 32, not reflect the first beam 31);
a third reflector configured to reflect the first beam (figure 5, third reflector 210b, first beam 31); and
a fourth reflector configured to reflect the second beam (figure 5, fourth reflector 211b, second beam 32).
However, Wu does not teach a dichroic mirror configured to direct the first beam and the second beam, and a reflector configured to reflect both the first beam and the second beam. Nagahama teaches a dichroic mirror configured to direct the first beam and the second beam (figure 4, dichroic mirror 3, the first beam from light source 1, and the second beam from light source 2), and a reflector configured to reflect both the first beam and the second beam (figure 4, mirror 7 configured to reflect both the first beam from light source 1 and the second beam from light source 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu by having dichroic mirror and reflector configured to reflect both the first beam and the second beam in order to transmit the light from the light source 1 and reflect the light from the light source 2 ([0040]; Figure 4, elements 1, 2, 3, 7).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Wu teaches he first reflector is a broadband reflector (figures 2, 3, 7, 8, first reflector 207).
5. Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0116332) in view of Nagahama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015/0204796), further in view of Amanullah (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0013899). Hereafter “Wu”, “Nagahama”, “Amanullah”.
Regarding Claim(s) 12-13, Wu and Nagahama teach all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above except for the third/fourth reflector is configured to reflect the first/second beam toward a sample at an angle of incidence less than or equal to ten degrees of Brewster's angle. Amanullah teaches the third/fourth reflector is configured to reflect the first/second beam toward a sample at an angle of incidence less than or equal to ten degrees of Brewster's angle, (Figures 27a, 27b, reflectors 54a, 54b, sample 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu and Nagahama by reflecting the first/second beam toward a sample at an angle of incidence less than or equal to ten degrees of Brewster's angle in order to inspect reflected light efficiently (Figures 27a, 27b, reflectors 54a, 54b, sample 12).
6. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0116332) in view of Nagahama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015/0204796), further in view of Sappey (U.S. Pat. No. 9,772,289). Hereafter “Wu”, “Nagahama”, “Sappey”.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Wu and Nagahama teach all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above except for a long wavelength pass reflector. Sappey teaches a long wavelength pass reflector, (Figure 1A, reflector 116; column 12, lines 38-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu and Nagahama by having a long wavelength pass reflector in order to be suitable for separating a first spectral range of radiation (Figure 1A, reflector 116; column 12, lines 38-40).
7. Claim(s) 16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0116332) in view of Nagahama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015/0204796), further in view of Biellak et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,169,613). Hereafter “Wu”, “Nagahama”, “Biellak”.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Wu and Nagahama teach all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above except for ellipsoidal collector configured to collect scattered radiation resulting from irradiation of a sample. Biellak teaches ellipsoidal collector configured to collect scattered radiation resulting from irradiation of a sample, (Figure 1, ellipsoidal collector 78). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu and Nagahama by having ellipsoidal collector in order to collect and direct the scattered radiation to a detector efficiently, (Figure 1, ellipsoidal collector 78; column 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Wu and Nagahama teach all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above except for a spatial filter. Biellak teaches a spatial filter, (column 4, lines 21-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu and Nagahama by having a spatial filter in order to block unwanted radiation, (column 4, lines 21-43).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Wu and Nagahama teach all the limitations of claim 11 as stated above except for a detector configured to measure the scattered radiation collected by the compound ellipsoidal collector. Biellak teaches a detector configured to measure the scattered radiation collected by the compound ellipsoidal collector (figure 1, detector 80, ellipsoidal collector 78). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wu and Nagahama by having a detector in order to measure the scattered radiation collected by the compound ellipsoidal collector, (figure 1, detector 80, ellipsoidal collector 78).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
November 14, 2025
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877