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 and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 25 November 2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-22 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome most of the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 30 June 2025, and those are hereby withdrawn. Maintained objections and rejections are outlined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments (remarks page 1 paragraph 4 – page 2 paragraph 4) related to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of means plus function limitations recited in 1, 11, 21-22, examiner notes that the structural correspondence of the means plus function limitations are directly from applicant’s disclosure, and that the structures named within the interpretation cover said named structures and any equivalents thereof. For example, applicant states that optical element 225 provides the means for receiving reflected light – optical element 225 has been interpreted to correspond to at least a lens, and the specification itself names 225 as a collection lens. Applicant has not properly shown incompatibility between the means plus function limitations and the current claims. Related to the “means of conveying and mixing received light”, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a detector as an equivalent to the structures listed (i.e. equivalent to a mixer, since the mixer detects a signal); one of ordinary skill would also consider an oscilloscope “handing light” equivalent with an oscilloscope “handling electronic signals”. Examiner notes that an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not a rejection, and serves only to formally record how the limitations in question are being interpreted for sake of examination.
Applicant’s arguments (remarks page 2 paragraph 5 – page 8 paragraph 2) rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1, 11, and 21-22. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “photonic Doppler velocimetry or PDV” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Applicant has provided a very detailed recitation of PDV and related geometries of systems which allegedly classify as being based in PDV (for example, systems with or without circulators) – examiner acknowledges these assertions, but no formal argument is set forth against the references used in the previous rejections, and therefore any argument founded on this point is not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks (page 8 paragraph 3 – page 10 in its entirety) directed to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims to correct various antecedent basis issues.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 25 November 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore is considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment filed 25 November 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[0026] within the amended specification on line 3 recites “but no greater than 3.0 steradians”.
[0042] within the amended specification on lines 9 and 10 recites “approximately 0.785 steradians” and “approximately 0.417 steradians” respectively.
[0043] within the amended specification on line 10 recites “receive optics would be 0.785 steradians”.
[0044] within the amended specification on lines 7-9 recites “solid angle would be 0.54 steradians”, “solid angle would be 0.785 steradians”, “solid angles is 1.325 steradians” and “solid angle ratio would be -0.687”.
[0046] within the amended specification on lines 9 and 14 recites “maximum value of 3.0” and “always between 0 and 3.0” respectively.
All of the underlined numbers within the preceding bullets are not supported by the original disclosure and therefore:
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to as they recite the limitations “means of conveying light” and “means of conveying and mixing” on lines 18 and 20 of claim 21 and lines 17 and 19 of claim 22. All other appearances within the claims of “means of” objected to in the previous action have been corrected. These outstanding limitations should be corrected to “means for conveying light” and “means for conveying and mixing”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims recite the limitations “means of directing light”, and “means of receiving reflected light” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitation “means for directing light” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a signal laser (applicant’s drawings and specification fig. 8, [0042], [0044], [0045]), and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “means for receiving reflected light” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to fiber optic couplings, lenses, mirrors, etc. (applicant’s drawings and specification fig. 8 and [0045]-[0046]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 21-22, the claims recite the limitations “means of directing light”, “means of receiving reflected light”, and “means of conveying and mixing received light” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitation “means for directing light” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a signal laser (applicant’s drawings and specification fig. 8, [0042], [0044], [0045]), and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “means for receiving reflected light” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to fiber optic couplings, lenses, mirrors, etc. (applicant’s drawings and specification fig. 8 and [0045]-[0046]) and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “means of conveying and mixing received light” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to fiber optic couplings, lenses, mirrors, mixers, oscilloscopes, etc. (applicant’s drawings and specification fig. 8 and [0045]-[0046]), and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein solid angles…differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians” on line 11-13. The claim also recites “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth on lines 14-16. The specification originally filed on 29 November 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 1. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth on lines 12-14. The specification originally filed on 29 November 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 11. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein solid angles…differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians” on lines 1-5. The specification originally filed on 29 November 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 12. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “wherein solid angles…differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians” on lines 12-14. The claim also recites “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth on lines 15-17 The specification originally filed on 29 November 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 21. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth on lines14-16. The specification originally filed on 29 November 2023 does not disclose the elements recited in claim 22. Information contained in any one of the specification, claims, or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter. MPEP 2163.06, see also 35 U.S.C. 132 – No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 1-22 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21-22, the claims recite the limitation “the physical dimensions” (claim 1 line 14, claim 11 line 12, claim 21 line 15, and claim 22 line 14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim, as had been indicated for the limitation “the physical envelope” within the previous action. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any physical dimensions of the probe assembly will read on the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence on the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence on the deficiency of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0215617 A1 by Mayeul Meylan Durand De Givegney (herein after “Durand”) in view of US 2005/0179908 A1 by Hideo Wada et al. (herein after “Wada”).
Regarding claim 1, Durand discloses a photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly comprising:
a probe assembly having at least one means for directing light towards a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] discloses a system 1 comprising a light source 20 [means for directing light] directing light to substrate 2), and at least one means for receiving reflected light from a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0105] discloses detection module 50 collecting light scattered by the surface [where scattering is a type of reflection – i.e. diffuse reflection, and explicitly not specular reflection (Durand [0024]);
with at least one optical connection for directed light and at least one separate optical connection for received light (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces directed light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [optical fibers forming incident beams considered as the at least one optical connection for the sent light]; Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [optical connection for received light, different than that directing the light to the surface]);
wherein solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces and solid angles for light directed towards a test surface of surfaces differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Durand [0105] discloses that the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; the claimed range for the difference in solid angle for the paths of the sent light and reflected light is satisfied – on the low end, fig. 1 shows the optical fiber 40 aligned with an axis x, and the sent light makes an angle with the axis [i.e. difference is greater than 0 steradians]; MPEP 2114 II. discloses that “the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art”; in this case, an upper limit for a difference in solid angle between light received from a test surface and light directed towards the test surface is a function of operating the device; Durand fig. 1 and [0105] disclose an apparatus where light is emitted to a surface and collected after interaction with the surface, and the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; given the ability of Durand to collect scattered light over said portrayed significant solid angle, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an upper limit of 3.0 steradians between solid angles of light received from a test surface and solid angles directed towards said test surface as not differentiating the claimed invention over the disclosure of Durand – further, the specification does not assign any criticality for the claimed upper limit of 3.0 steradians).
Durand is silent to wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth.
However, Wada does address this limitation. Durand and Wada are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize velocimeters for the inspection of a sample.
Wada discloses “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Wada deals generally with doppler velocimeter for detecting the velocity of an object to be measured (Wada [0002]); Wada [0114] discloses the ability to downsize the [velocimeter] device, and therefore realize a cost reduction by reducing the size of the device; based on this downsize of device size and based on a lack of criticality described within the specification for the limiting of the physical dimensions of the claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of realizing a cost reduction to create the probe structure so that it would not exceed 1 ft. each of height, width, and depth, as required by the claim; see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand to incorporate wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth as suggested by Wada for the advantage of realizing a cost reduction through downsizing the size of the velocimeter by reducing the part count (Wada [0114]).
Regarding claim 3, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one lens (Durand [0098] and [0101] disclose that the incoming beams 4 and 5 are shaped by focusing optics – while a lens is not explicitly named as part of the focusing optics, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of lenses is very common and serve as focusing optics for the manipulation/focusing of light beams).
Regarding claim 4, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one lens (Durand [0105] disclose elements not shown in fig. 1 are placed between the substrate and the optical fiber 40 [receiving connection] including concave lenses).
Regarding claim 5, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one mirror (Durand [0098]; as with claim 3 above, the incoming beams 4 and 5 are shaped by at least a reflecting mirror).
Regarding claim 6, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one mirror (Durand [0105]; as with claim 4 above, elements not shown in fig. 1 are placed between the substrate 2 and the optical fiber 40 [receiving connection] including mirrors).
Regarding claim 7, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one fiber (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces the sent light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [i.e. uses one fiber on the incident light side]).
Regarding claim 8, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one fiber (Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [i.e. one fiber]).
Regarding claim 9, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein angle deviations from co-axial between light directed towards a test surface or surfaces and the light received from a test surface or surfaces are no greater than 88 degrees (Durand [0067] discloses that images of a substrate are obtained, where the images are dependent on the lighting conditions of the substrate, including the angle of incidence; Durand does not explicitly disclose the angle deviation between the paths as being no greater than 88 degrees, but a prima facie case of obviousness still exists; the angle deviation from co-axial between sent and received light paths is a result effective variable, where the characteristics of the images are dependent on said angle of deviation; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for the angle deviation between light paths, where the optimum value may be a range where the deviation is no greater than 88 degrees for the advantage of optimizing the intensity images of the substrate obtained with the device; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and II (B)).
Regarding claim 10, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein distances between focal points of light directed towards a test surface or surfaces and focal points of the light received from a test surface or surfaces are no greater than 4 inches (as discussed previously, the incident beams 4 and 5 are emitted towards the substrate 2 from the interferometry device 30; while Durand does not explicitly disclose the distance between the focal points of the directed light and received light, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists; [0101] discloses that the intersection of the beams occurs at a focalization point which minimizes the size of a measurement volume emitted to the sample; the fringes generated are dependent on the focal point of the incident light path, and [0105] discloses the collection of light optimized by placing the receiving optical fiber at a focus of a focusing element; the distance between the focal point of the sent light path and the focal point of the received light path is a result effective variable where, as with the previous claim, effects the characteristics of the images obtained by the device are dependent on the lighting conditions of the substrate [including the geometry of the sent light path and received light path]; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for the distance between focal points of the directed and received light, where that optimum value may be a range such that the distance is no greater than 4 inches, for the advantage of optimizing the intensity images of the substrate obtained with the device; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and II (B)).
Regarding claim 21, Durand discloses a method of utilizing separate send and receive signal paths within a photonic Doppler velocimetry system, the method comprising:
a probe assembly having at least one means for directing light towards a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] discloses a system 1 comprising a light source 20 [means for directing light] directing light to substrate 2), and at least one means for receiving reflected light from a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0105] discloses detection module 50 collecting light scattered by the surface [where scattering is a type of reflection – i.e. diffuse reflection, and explicitly not specular reflection (Durand [0024]);
with at least one optical connection for directed light and at least one separate optical connection for received light (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces the sent light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [optical fibers forming incident beams considered as the at least one optical connection for the sent light]; Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [optical connection for received light]);
wherein solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces and solid angles for light directed towards a test surface of surfaces differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Durand [0105] discloses that the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; the claimed range for the difference in solid angle for the paths of the sent light and reflected light is satisfied – on the low end, fig. 1 shows the optical fiber 40 aligned with an axis x, and the sent light makes an angle with the axis [i.e. difference is greater than 0 steradians]; MPEP 2114 II. discloses that “the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art”; in this case, an upper limit for a difference in solid angle between light received from a test surface and light directed towards the test surface is a function of operating the device; Durand fig. 1 and [0105] disclose an apparatus where light is emitted to a surface and collected after interaction with the surface, and the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; given the ability of Durand to collect scattered light over said portrayed significant solid angle, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an upper limit of 3.0 steradians between solid angles of light received from a test surface and solid angles directed towards said test surface as not differentiating the claimed invention over the disclosure of Durand – further, the specification does not assign any criticality for the claimed upper limit of 3.0 steradians);
also comprising a means of conveying light from a source to the directed light connection of a photonic Doppler velocimetry probe (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] disclose a light source 20 directing light to a substrate 2; for light to be directed to the substrate, the light must be conveyed to the sent light connection of the system 1 [system 1 being the claimed photonic Doppler velocimetry probe]).
Durand is silent to wherein the physical envelope of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth, and [the assembly] further comprising a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector.
However, Wada does address this limitation. Durand and Wada are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize velocimeters for the inspection of a sample.
Wada discloses “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Wada deals generally with doppler velocimeter for detecting the velocity of an object to be measured (Wada [0002]); Wada [0114] discloses the ability to downsize the [velocimeter] device, and therefore realize a cost reduction by reducing the size of the device; based on this downsize of device size and based on a lack of criticality described within the specification for the limiting of the physical dimensions of the claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of realizing a cost reduction to create the probe structure so that it would not exceed 1 ft. each of height, width, and depth, as required by the claim; see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))), “and [the assembly]
further comprising a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector” (Wada fig. 5 shows a light source 5 being split by beamsplitter 14 into a first light flux 7 and second light flux 8 where only the first light flux 7 makes contact with the surface of the object; [0166] discloses the first and second light flux being made to interfere with one another, where the second light flux 8 serves as a reference light beam [i.e. generated by a reference light source] and generate an interference light 9 which is incident to photodetectors 21,22; Wada abstract discloses that a signal (third signal) indicative of the movement of the sample is generated based on the interference of a first and second signal (i.e. signals obtained by first and second photodetectors 21 and 22 respectively in fig. 5) [conveying and mixing the received light from the received light connection of the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe with a reference light source]; the abstract states that the frequency of the resultant third signal is detected [i.e. converted by an optical detector])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand to incorporate wherein the physical envelope of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth, and [the assembly] further comprising a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector as suggested by Wada for the advantage of realizing a cost reduction through downsizing the size of the velocimeter by reducing the part count (Wada [0114]).
Claims 2, 11-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durand in view of Wada, and further in view of US 2021/0341610 A1 by Shuai Dong et al. (herein after “Dong”).
Regarding claim 2, Durand when modified by Wada discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1. Durand when modified by Wada is silent to the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1.
However, Dong does address this limitation. Durand, Wada, and Dong are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are devices used to detect features of a target using light emission and reflection.
Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 1, “wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1” (Dong fig. 1 and [0047] discloses that a solid angle with respect to the light pulse [sent light] is 20%-40% of a solid angle of the detector [received light]; i.e. the ratio between the two solid angles where the sent light is 20%-40% of the received light satisfies the ratio requirement, as the ratio would be 0.2 to 0.4, falling between -1 and 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand in view of Wada to incorporate wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1 as suggested by Dong for the advantage of optimizing the effectiveness of the device through considering the ratios of the light path solid angles and areas, and optimizing them (Dong [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Durand discloses a photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly comprising:
a probe assembly having at least one means for directing light towards a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] discloses a system 1 comprising a light source 20 [means for directing light] directing light to substrate 2), and at least one means for receiving reflected light from a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0105] discloses detection module 50 collecting light scattered by the surface [where scattering is a type of reflection – i.e. diffuse reflection, and explicitly not specular reflection (Durand [0024]);
with at least one optical connection for directed light and at least one separate optical connection for received light (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces directed light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [optical fibers forming incident beams considered as the at least one optical connection for the sent light]; Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [optical connection for received light, different than that directing the light to the surface]).
Durand is silent to wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth.
However, Wada does address this limitation. Durand and Wada are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize velocimeters for the inspection of a sample.
Wada discloses “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Wada deals generally with doppler velocimeter for detecting the velocity of an object to be measured (Wada [0002]); Wada [0114] discloses the ability to downsize the [velocimeter] device, and therefore realize a cost reduction by reducing the size of the device; based on this downsize of device size and based on a lack of criticality described within the specification for the limiting of the physical dimensions of the claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of realizing a cost reduction to create the probe structure so that it would not exceed 1 ft. each of height, width, and depth, as required by the claim; see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand to incorporate wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth as suggested by Wada for the advantage of realizing a cost reduction through downsizing the size of the velocimeter by reducing the part count (Wada [0114]).
Durand when modified by Wada is silent to wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1.
However, Dong does address this limitation. Durand, Wada, and Dong are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are devices used to detect features of a target using light emission and reflection.
Dong discloses “wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1” (Dong fig. 1 and [0047] discloses that a solid angle with respect to the light pulse [sent light] is 20%-40% of a solid angle of the detector [received light]; i.e. the ratio between the two solid angles where the sent light is 20%-40% of the received light satisfies the ratio requirement, as the ratio would be 0.2 to 0.4, falling between -1 and 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand in view of Wada to incorporate wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1 as suggested by Dong for the advantage of optimizing the effectiveness of the device through considering the ratios of the light path solid angles and areas, and optimizing them (Dong [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces and solid angles for light directed towards a test surface of surfaces differ by more than 0 steradians but no greater than 3.0 steradians (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Durand [0105] discloses that the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; the claimed range for the difference in solid angle for the paths of the sent light and reflected light is satisfied – on the low end, fig. 1 shows the optical fiber 40 aligned with an axis x, and the sent light makes an angle with the axis [i.e. difference is greater than 0 steradians]; MPEP 2114 II. discloses that “the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art”; in this case, an upper limit for a difference in solid angle between light received from a test surface and light directed towards the test surface is a function of operating the device; Durand fig. 1 and [0105] disclose an apparatus where light is emitted to a surface and collected after interaction with the surface, and the optical fiber 40 collects light scattered over substantial portions of solid angles; given the ability of Durand to collect scattered light over said portrayed significant solid angle, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an upper limit of 3.0 steradians between solid angles of light received from a test surface and solid angles directed towards said test surface as not differentiating the claimed invention over the disclosure of Durand – further, the specification does not assign any criticality for the claimed upper limit of 3.0 steradians).
Regarding claim 13, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one lens (Durand [0098] and [0101] disclose that the incoming beams 4 and 5 are shaped by focusing optics – while a lens is not explicitly named as part of the focusing optics, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of lenses is very common and serve as focusing optics for the manipulation/focusing of light beams).
Regarding claim 14, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one lens (Durand [0105] disclose elements not shown in fig. 1 are placed between the substrate and the optical fiber 40 [receiving connection] including concave lenses).
Regarding claim 15, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one mirror (Durand [0098]; as with claim 3 above, the incoming beams 4 and 5 are shaped by at least a reflecting mirror).
Regarding claim 16, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one mirror (Durand [0105]; as with claim 4 above, elements not shown in fig. 1 are placed between the substrate 2 and the optical fiber 40 [receiving connection] including mirrors).
Regarding claim 17, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein light is directed towards a test surface or surfaces by at least one fiber (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces the sent light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [i.e. uses one fiber on the incident light side]).
Regarding claim 18, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein reflected light is received from a test surface or surfaces by at least one fiber (Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [i.e. one fiber]).
Regarding claim 19, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein angle deviations from co-axial between light directed towards a test surface or surfaces and the light received from a test surface or surfaces are no greater than 88 degrees (Durand [0067] discloses that images of a substrate are obtained, where the images are dependent on the lighting conditions of the substrate, including the angle of incidence; Durand does not explicitly disclose the angle deviation between the paths as being no greater than 88 degrees, but a prima facie case of obviousness still exists; the angle deviation from co-axial between sent and received light paths is a result effective variable, where the characteristics of the images are dependent on said angle of deviation; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for the angle deviation between light paths, where the optimum value may be a range where the deviation is no greater than 88 degrees for the advantage of optimizing the intensity images of the substrate obtained with the device; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and II (B)).
Regarding claim 20, Durand when modified by Wada and Dong discloses the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe assembly of claim 11, and Durand further teaches the assembly wherein distances between focal points of light directed towards a test surface or surfaces and focal points of the light received from a test surface or surfaces are no greater than 4 inches (as discussed previously, the incident beams 4 and 5 are emitted towards the substrate 2 from the interferometry device 30; while Durand does not explicitly disclose the distance between the focal points of the directed light and received light, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists; [0101] discloses that the intersection of the beams occurs at a focalization point which minimizes the size of a measurement volume emitted to the sample; the fringes generated are dependent on the focal point of the incident light path, and [0105] discloses the collection of light optimized by placing the receiving optical fiber at a focus of a focusing element; the distance between the focal point of the sent light path and the focal point of the received light path is a result effective variable where, as with the previous claim, effects the characteristics of the images obtained by the device are dependent on the lighting conditions of the substrate [including the geometry of the sent light path and received light path]; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for the distance between focal points of the directed and received light, where that optimum value may be a range such that the distance is no greater than 4 inches, for the advantage of optimizing the intensity images of the substrate obtained with the device; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and II (B)).
Regarding claim 22, Durand discloses a method of utilizing separate send and receive signal paths within a photonic Doppler velocimetry system, the method comprising:
a probe assembly having at least one means for directing light towards a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] discloses a system 1 comprising a light source 20 [means for directing light] directing light to substrate 2), and at least one means for receiving reflected light from a test surface or surfaces (Durand fig. 1 and [0105] discloses detection module 50 collecting light scattered by the surface [where scattering is a type of reflection – i.e. diffuse reflection, and explicitly not specular reflection (Durand [0024]);
with at least one optical connection for directed light and at least one separate optical connection for received light (Durand [0099] discloses the interferometric device 30 (which produces the sent light) uses the coupling of optical fibers to form the incident beams 4 and 5 [optical fibers forming incident beams considered as the at least one optical connection for the sent light]; Durand [0105] discloses an optical fiber 40 which collects light scattered from surface [optical connection for received light]);
also comprising a means of conveying light from a source to the directed light connection of a photonic Doppler velocimetry probe (Durand fig. 1 and [0096] disclose a light source 20 directing light to a substrate 2; for light to be directed to the substrate, the light must be conveyed to the sent light connection of the system 1 [system 1 being the claimed photonic Doppler velocimetry probe]).
Durand is silent to wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth, and [the assembly] further comprising a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector.
However, Wada does address this limitation. Durand and Wada are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they utilize velocimeters for the inspection of a sample.
Wada discloses “wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth” (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above; Wada deals generally with doppler velocimeter for detecting the velocity of an object to be measured (Wada [0002]); Wada [0114] discloses the ability to downsize the [velocimeter] device, and therefore realize a cost reduction by reducing the size of the device; based on this downsize of device size and based on a lack of criticality described within the specification for the limiting of the physical dimensions of the claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, as it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of realizing a cost reduction to create the probe structure so that it would not exceed 1 ft. each of height, width, and depth, as required by the claim; see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))), “and [the assembly]
further comprising a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector” (Wada fig. 5 shows a light source 5 being split by beamsplitter 14 into a first light flux 7 and second light flux 8 where only the first light flux 7 makes contact with the surface of the object; [0166] discloses the first and second light flux being made to interfere with one another, where the second light flux 8 serves as a reference light beam [i.e. generated by a reference light source] and generate an interference light 9 which is incident to photodetectors 21,22; Wada abstract discloses that a signal (third signal) indicative of the movement of the sample is generated based on the interference of a first and second signal (i.e. signals obtained by first and second photodetectors 21 and 22 respectively in fig. 5) [conveying and mixing the received light from the received light connection of the photonic Doppler velocimetry probe with a reference light source]; the abstract states that the frequency of the resultant third signal is detected [i.e. converted by an optical detector])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand to incorporate wherein the physical dimensions of the probe assembly are no greater than 1 foot in length, no greater than 1 foot in height, and no greater than 1 foot in depth and a means of conveying and mixing received light with a reference light to produce interference fringes that can be converted by an optical detector as suggested by Wada for the advantage of realizing a cost reduction through downsizing the size of the velocimeter by reducing the part count (Wada [0114]).
Durand when modified by Wada is silent to wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1.
However, Dong does address this limitation. Durand, Wada, and Dong are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are devices used to detect features of a target using light emission and reflection.
Dong discloses “wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1” (Dong fig. 1 and [0047] discloses that a solid angle with respect to the light pulse [sent light] is 20%-40% of a solid angle of the detector [received light]; i.e. the ratio between the two solid angles where the sent light is 20%-40% of the received light satisfies the ratio requirement, as the ratio would be 0.2 to 0.4, falling between -1 and 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durand in view of Wada to incorporate wherein ratios of solid angles for light directed towards a test surface or surfaces to solid angles for light received from a test surface or surfaces occur between 1 and -1 as suggested by Dong for the advantage of optimizing the effectiveness of the device through considering the ratios of the light path solid angles and areas, and optimizing them (Dong [0051]).
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 R 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877