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 is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 12/15/2023. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “adjusting unit”; “correction unit”; “acquiring unit”; and “optical path length changing unit” in at least claims 1-3, 6-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig.1, Ref 150, Ref 151, Ref 100, a Ref 152, description [0018]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4- 6, 10, and 15- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch et al. (US 2012/0133924 A1, “Heinisch”) in view of Stork Ingo (US 2012/0188365 A1, “Stork”).
Regarding claim 1, Heinisch teaches a measurement apparatus (Heinisch teaches measuring apparatus 20 for measuring optical surfaces S1, S2, and S3 of multi-lens tested optical system 62. In Fig. 9, the apparatus includes autocollimator 22, short coherence interferometer 24, computer 26, test specimen receptacle 28, rotating table 30, and common zoom lens 46. See Fig. 9; [0064] and [0081]- [0083].) comprising:
a first light source configured to illuminate a chart (Heinisch teaches light source 38 (a first light source) configured to illuminate pinhole diaphragm 40 (chart) with angle measuring light. Pinhole diaphragm 40 provides an optical target whose image is formed and detected. Heinisch further states that the pinhole diaphragm may be replaced by a differently shaped aperture, such as a cross-slit aperture. A. See [0065].);
a measurement optical system (Fig. 9, at least beam splitter 42, collimator lens 44, and zoom lens 46) configured to make first light emitted from the chart enter a tested optical system (Heinisch teaches that the angle measuring light emanating from pinhole diaphragm 40 is directed by beam splitter 42 through collimator lens 44 and zoom lens 46 toward tested optical system 62. Collimator lens 44 produces an axially parallel ray bundle, and zoom lens 46 focuses the light at focal point 48. In Figure 9, zoom lens 46 is the common focusing optic used for both the angle measuring light and interferometric spacing measuring light 70. See [0065] and [0081]- [0082].);
an image sensor configured to receive the first light reflected by a plurality of test surfaces of the tested optical system through the measurement optical system (Heinisch teaches image sensor 50, such as a CCD or CMOS sensor, which receives the angle measuring light returned from a selected optical surface through zoom lens 46, collimator lens 44, and beam splitter 42. The returned light forms an image of pinhole diaphragm 40 on image sensor 50. Heinisch successively measures the centers of curvature of surfaces S1, S2, and S3. For each surface, zoom lens 46 is positioned so that focal point 48 is near the corresponding center of curvature, and the image of pinhole diaphragm 40 on image sensor 50 is recorded. See [0065]- [ 0071] and [0100]- [0103].);
an adjusting unit configured to adjust relative positions of the measurement optical system and the tested optical system so as to form an image of the chart by the first light on a light receiving surface of the image sensor (Heinisch teaches zoom lens 46 movable along reference axis 34 to position focal point 48 at a selected surface or center of curvature and recording the image of pinhole diaphragm 40 after the optical relationship is adjusted. So, the mechanism that moves lens 46 is the adjusting unit. See Fig. 9, [0065], [0102]- [0104].);
an interferometer including a second light source (configured to emit second light with a wavelength different from that of the first light) (Heinisch teaches short coherence interferometer 24 with broadband light source 64, such as a super luminescent diode. See [0073].),
the interferometer being configured to split the second light from the second light source into test light and reference, and to acquire an interference signal by causing interference between the reference light and the test light that has emitted from a first point, that has been reflected by the plurality of test surfaces, and that has entered a second point through the measurement optical system (Heinisch teaches an interferometer 24 including a broadband, short coherence light source 64. In Fig. 9, light generated by source 64 is coupled by first beam splitter cube 68 to second beam splitter cube 90, which splits the light into measuring light ray 70, corresponding to the claimed test light, and reference light ray 72, corresponding to the claimed reference light. See Heinisch, [0073]- [0074] and [0082]. Measuring light ray 70 exits second beam splitter cube 90 at a first point on the test arm port of cube 90 and passes through zoom lens 46 toward tested optical system 62. Zoom lens 46 forms part of the claimed measurement optical system because Heinisch teaches that zoom lens 46 focuses both the angle measuring light and spacing measuring light 70. See [0082]. Measuring light ray 70 is reflected by the plurality of test surfaces S1, S2, and S3 and returns through zoom lens 46 to enter second beam splitter cube 90 at a second point on the test arm port. See [0075] and [0081]- [0083] and Fig. 9. The returned measuring light is superimposed with reference light ray 72 and supplied to photodetector 82. When their optical path lengths correspond within the coherence length of source 64, photodetector 82 acquires an interference signal. Separate interference signals corresponding to surfaces S1, S2, and S3 are shown in Fig. 8. See [0075]- [0078].); and
an acquiring unit configured to acquire an optical path length from the first point to the plurality of test surfaces based on the interference signal, and a distance between two test surfaces among the plurality of test surfaces based on the optical path length (Heinisch teaches computer 26 as the computing and evaluation unit. Reference mirror 74 is displaced by actuator 76 to scan the optical path length of reference light ray 72. Photodetector 82 registers interference signals when the reference path length corresponds to the path length of measuring light reflected from a respective surface. See [0064], [0077], and [0099]. The positions of the interference signal maxima along the scanned optical path length coordinate identify the respective optical path lengths associated with surfaces S1, S2, and S3. Heinisch then calculates the spacings between the surfaces from the differences between those path length positions, taking the group refractive index into account. See [0077]- [0078]; Fig. 8.).
Heinisch fails to explicitly teach that the second light source (configured to emit second light with a wavelength different from that of the first light) and a correction unit configured to correct a condensing position deviation between the first light and the test light caused by a wavelength difference between the first light and the test light.
However, Stork teaches an observation system having wavelength λK and a working laser optical system having a different wavelength λL. Stork recognizes that the different wavelengths produce different focal plane positions because of chromatic aberration and other wavelength dependent effects. See [0031], [0066]- [0067], and [0116].
Stork further teaches evaluation and control unit 122 configured to calculate a correction adjustment travel for compensating a focal position displacement. Stork includes in the calculation: the different wavelengths of the observation system and working light; chromatic aberration and other wavelength dependent effects; the different imaging relationships of the two optical channels; and the resulting displacement of the working light focal position. Stork also teaches performing the correction by moving focusing lens 114, movable zoom components, or the optical head along the optical axis. See [0061]- [0067]; claims 1, 5, and 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that the angle measuring light and spacing measuring light have different wavelengths and to provide a control unit and adjustable optical component that compensate for the resulting wavelength dependent focal position difference. Heinisch uses the common zoom lens 46 to focus both optical channels onto the same selected test surface, while Stork teaches that optical channels having different wavelengths can exhibit different focal positions because of chromatic aberration and other wavelength dependent effects and teaches calculating and correcting that difference. The modification would cause the image based surface identification channel and interferometric measurement channel to focus on the same intended surface, thereby increasing the returned interference signal strength and improving the reliability and accuracy of the surface spacing measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit determines an adjustment amount of a condensing position based on a deviation amount of the condensing position deviation (Stork teaches calculating correction adjustment travel ΔzOS or ΔzB based on an observed focus displacement and an adjustment ΔdKL required to refocus the camera image. The correction calculation accounts for imaging ratios, wavelength differences, and the resulting focus displacement. See [0030], [0064]- [0067]; Stork claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that computer 26 determines an adjustment amount for the condensing position based on the determined amount of wavelength dependent condensing position deviation, because Stork teaches calculating a corrective displacement corresponding to the detected focal position displacement. Applying an adjustment amount derived from the measured deviation would predictably compensate for the deviation by an appropriate amount, thereby aligning the focus of spacing measuring light 70 with the surface identified by the angle measuring light and improving the strength and accuracy of the interferometric measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the deviation amount is determined by using design information on the tested optical system.
Heinisch teaches design information associated with tested optical system 62, including expected center of curvature positions, lens center thicknesses, and air separations, and uses such information in the computational evaluation and positioning of the measurement optics. See [0020] and [0109]. Stork teaches determining a wavelength dependent focal position deviation based on the imaging relationships and chromatic focusing effects of light having different wavelengths. See [0064]- [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that computer 26 determines the condensing position deviation using the design information of tested optical system 62, because the designed optical geometry affects the relative focal positions of the different wavelengths and use of that information would improve correction accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the deviation amount is determined by using design information on the tested optical system and a measurement value of the acquired distance between adjacent test surfaces among the plurality of test surfaces.
Heinisch teaches design information associated with tested optical system 62 and interferometrically acquiring actual distances between adjacent optical surfaces. Heinisch further teaches substituting the measured surface spacings for corresponding nominal design spacings because actual lens thicknesses and air separations may differ from their designed values. See [0015]- [0020] and [0107]- [0109]. Stork teaches determining a wavelength dependent focal position deviation based on the imaging relationships and chromatic focusing effects of light having different wavelengths. See [0064]- [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that computer 26 determines the condensing position deviation using both the tested system design information and the acquired distance between adjacent test surfaces, because using the measured spacing in place of the nominal spacing would account for manufacturing and assembly tolerances and improve the accuracy of the wavelength dependent focus correction.
Regarding claim 6, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting a position of an optical element in the measurement optical system.
Heinisch teaches, in the Fig. 9, a measurement optical system including zoom lens 46, which focuses both the angle measuring light and spacing measuring light 70 toward tested optical system 62. Heinisch further teaches that zoom lens 46 is positioning along the optical axis. See Heinisch, [0065] and [0081]- [0083]. Stork teaches correcting a focal position displacement by axially adjusting a movable optical element, particularly focusing lens 114 or an individual zoom component of the focusing optical system, and teaches calculating that correction while accounting for the different wavelengths, chromatic aberration, and other wavelength dependent effects of the optical channels. See Stork, [0061]- [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Heinisch’s measurement optical system, as taught by Stork, to provide an axially movable focusing optical element controlled by computer 26 to shift the condensing position of spacing measuring light 70 by the calculated correction amount, because such positional adjustment provides a direct and predictable mechanism for compensating the wavelength dependent focal position deviation and thereby improves the returned interference signal strength and accuracy of the surface distance measurement.
Regarding claim 10, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting relative positions of a focusing lens as the optical element in the measurement optical system and the first point.
Heinisch teaches, Fig. 9, zoom lens 46 positioned in the measurement optical path between second beam splitter cube 90 and tested optical system 62. Heinisch teaches that zoom lens 46 focuses spacing measuring light 70 and angle measuring light and that zoom lens 46 is displaceable along reference axis 34. See Heinisch, [0065] and [0081]- [0083]. The claimed first point corresponds, as mapped in claim 1, to the point at the test arm side of second beam splitter cube 90 from which measuring light ray 70 is emitted toward zoom lens 46. Accordingly, axial displacement of zoom lens 46 adjusts the relative positions of the focusing lens and the first point. Stork teaches correcting a wavelength dependent focal position displacement by axially adjusting a focusing lens or movable zoom component. See Stork [0061]- [0062] and [0066]- [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that the correction unit adjusts the axial position of focusing zoom lens 46 relative to the first point at second beam splitter cube 90 to correct the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation, because axial translation of the existing focusing lens provides a direct and predictable adjustment of the test light focal position, thereby causing spacing measuring light 70 to focus at the surface identified by the angle measuring light and improving the reliability of the interference measurement.
Regarding claim 15, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting unit adjusts the relative positions of the measurement optical system and the tested optical system in a direction parallel to a measurement axis as an optical axis in the measurement optical system.
Heinisch identifies reference axis 34 as the axis along which the interferometric surface spacing measurement is performed. The tested optical system 62 is supported by test specimen receptacle 28 and rotating table 30. Heinisch teaches adjusting tested optical system 62 relative to the fixed interferometer and measurement apparatus by tilting and/or displacing receptacle 28 until the optical axis of system 62 is aligned with reference axis 34. See [0022], [0090], and [0098].
Stork teaches adjusting the relative position of an optical head and a measured or processed surface in the direction of the optical axis or Z-axis. Stork teaches that focal correction may be performed by changing the position of optical head 100 relative to surface 104 by correction distance ΔZ. See Fig. 1; [0061]- [0062]; claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that test specimen receptacle 28 translates tested optical system 62 relative to the measurement optical system in a direction parallel to reference axis 34, because Stork teaches that axial relative translation provides a direct and predictable adjustment of the focal relationship between an optical system and a measured surface while maintaining their lateral alignment, thereby facilitating formation of the chart image at the selected test surface.
Regarding claim 16, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring unit acquires the optical path length from the first point to the plurality of test surfaces based on the interference signal acquired by the interferometer, after the condensing position deviation is corrected.
Heinisch teaches that after test specimen 62 has been optically oriented relative to reference axis 34, interferometer 24 measures the spacings between surfaces S1–S3. Computer 26 displaces reference mirror 74, registers the interference signal from photodetector 82, and evaluates the signal to obtain the optical path information and surface spacings. See [0099].
Stork teaches determining a focal position deviation; calculating a corresponding correction; adapting the focusing optics or their relative position; and thereafter operating with the corrected focal position. See [0011]- [0014] and [0061]- [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, so that computer 26 corrects the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation before acquiring the optical path lengths from the interference signal, because performing the interferometric acquisition after correcting the test light focus would increase the amount of reflected test light returned to the interferometer and improve the signal-to-noise ratio and accuracy of the acquired surface positions.
Regarding claim 17, Heinisch, in view of Stork, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the interferometer includes an optical path length changing unit configured to change a reference optical path length as an optical path length of the reference light (Heinisch teaches movable reference mirror 74 and actuator 76. Actuator 76 displaces mirror 74 and thereby changes or tunes the optical path length traveled by reference light ray 72. Mirror 74 together with actuator 76 corresponds to the claimed optical path length changing unit. See Fig. 9; [0074] and [0099]),
wherein the interferometer acquires the interference signal by scanning the reference optical path length using the optical path length changing unit (Heinisch teaches scanning or tuning the reference optical path by displacing mirror 74. Photodetector 82 registers interference responses when the scanned reference path corresponds to the test light path associated with surfaces S1, S2, and S3. Computer 26 evaluates those signals. See [0074]- [0078], [0099]; Fig. 8.),
after the image of the chart is formed on the light receiving surface by the adjusting unit (Heinisch teaches displacing zoom lens 46 so that the pinhole diaphragm 40 is imaged for a selected test surface and recording that image on image sensor 50. See [0065], [0102]- [0103]. Heinisch also teaches that the angle measuring and spacing measuring steps may be interchanged, such that the image based measurement may precede the interferometric spacing measurement. See [0020] and [0107].) and
the condensing position deviation is corrected by the correction unit (Stork as indicated in claim 1 teaches determining and correcting the wavelength dependent focal position displacement before using the corrected working light focus.), and
wherein the acquiring unit acquires an optical path length from the first point to the plurality of test surfaces based on the interference signal (As indicated in claim 1, Heinisch further teaches that computer 26, corresponding to the acquiring unit, acquires optical path length information from the previously mapped first point to surfaces S1–S3 based on the interference signal. In particular, computer 26 registers the respective interference peaks produced while actuator 76 scans the reference optical path by moving mirror 74, and the reference path position of each peak corresponds to the measuring path associated with the respective test surface. See Heinisch, Fig. 8 and [0074]- [0078], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, to form the chart image on image sensor 50, correct the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation, and thereafter scan the reference optical path by displacing mirror 74, because the image based operation identifies the selected test surface and the correction places spacing measuring light 70 at the corresponding focus before the interferometric scan, thereby increasing the returned signal and reducing the likelihood that the acquired interference response is associated with an incorrectly focused surface.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 19 is using the measuring method according to claim 18 to manufacture a method of an optical system. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Heinisch teaches measuring actual distances between optical surfaces of a multi-lens optical system, including lens center thicknesses and air separations, using interferometer 24. Heinisch further teaches that such measurements are performed in connection with the manufacture and assembly of the optical system and that the actual surface spacings may differ from their corresponding desired design values because of manufacturing and assembly tolerances, particularly errors in setting the air separations between lenses. See Heinisch, [0005] and [0015]- [0016]. Heinisch does not explicitly teach subsequently adjusting the optical system using the measured surface distance result. Stork teaches determining a correction adjustment amount from an optical measurement result and controlling an actuator to adjust the relative position of an optical system or movable optical components. See Stork, [0061]- [0062] and claims 6- 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Stork, to adjust the position of a lens or other optical component using the difference between the measured surface distance and the corresponding desired design distance, because such adjustment would correct the manufacturing or assembly error identified by Heinisch’s measurement and bring the optical system into conformity with its prescribed design geometry, thereby improving its optical performance.
Claims 3, 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch in view of Stork and Jeffrey D. Barchers (US 8076624 B1, “Barchers”).
Regarding claim 3, Heinisch, in view of Stork, fails to explicitly teach the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit adjusts a condensing position so as to maximize detection intensity of the interferometer.
However, Barchers teaches a closed loop gradient descent control procedure that forms an optical metric, perturbs a phase correction device, determines the gradient of the metric relative to the correction device command, and follows the gradient to maximize the metric. See Barchers, col. 8, ll. 26- 47. Barchers teaches that the selected metric may be the fringe intensity detected by an interferometer and that maximization of that fringe intensity maximizes the optical objective. See col. 8, l. 66- col. 9, l. 16. Barchers further teaches updating the correction device commands based on the measured derivative of the metric. See col. 9, ll. 17- 25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as modified by Stork and as taught by Barchers, so that the correction unit varies the condensing position correction and selects the correction producing the maximum interferometer fringe intensity, because Barchers teaches that interferometer fringe intensity may be used as a feedback metric for optimizing the optical correction, thereby increasing the interference signal strength and improving measurement reliability.
Regarding claim 8, Heinisch, in view of Stork, fails to explicitly teach measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting a shape of an optical element in the measurement optical system.
However, Barchers teaches performing optical phase and wavefront correction using an adjustable optical element selected from continuous facesheet, segmented, liquid crystal, membrane, or MEMS deformable mirrors. Barchers identifies a continuous facesheet deformable mirror operated using piezoelectric or membrane actuator technology as a preferred phase correction device. See Barchers, col. 6, ll. 10- 27. Barchers further teaches that wavefront sensor and controller 13C develops control commands for deformable mirror 17 to pre-correct the optical wavefront. See col. 11, ll. 54- 65. Thus, Barchers corrects the optical beam by controllably changing the shape of a deformable optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Barchers, to correct the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation using a shape adjustable deformable optical element, because Barchers teaches that controlled deformation of an optical element provides adjustable wavefront and focus correction, thereby permitting precise correction without translating or exchanging a fixed optical element.
Regarding claim 13, Heinisch, in view of Stork and Barchers, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the optical element in the measurement optical system includes a shape variable mirror, and wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting a shape of the shape variable mirror.
Barchers teaches deformable mirror 17, corresponding to the claimed shape variable mirror. Barchers identifies continuous facesheet and membrane deformable mirrors operated by actuator technology as preferred phase correction devices. See Barchers, col. 6, ll. 10- 27. Barchers further teaches that wavefront sensor and controller 13C develops control commands for deformable mirror 17 to pre-correct the optical wavefront. See col. 11, ll. 54- 65. In Fig. 5(a), the optical beam is pre-corrected by deformable mirror 17, and wavefront sensor and controller 13 controls mirror 17. See col. 12, ll. 10- 25. The applied actuator commands change the reflective surface shape of deformable mirror 17 and thereby change the wavefront and focus of the beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Barchers, to employ deformable mirror 17 as the shape variable correction element and to adjust its shape to correct the condensing position deviation, because Barchers teaches that an actuator controlled deformable mirror provides continuously variable wavefront and focus correction, thereby enabling accurate alignment of the spacing measuring light focus with the selected test surface.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch in view of Stork and Aiichi Ishikawa (US 20040113043 A1, “Ishikawa”).
Regarding claim 7, Heinisch, in view of Stork, fails to explicitly teach the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by exchanging an optical element in the measurement optical system.
Heinisch in view of Stork teaches correcting the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation using an optical element in the measurement optical system, but does not teach correcting the deviation by exchanging that optical element. Ishikawa teaches a focus position adjustment lens 8 that shifts a focus position along the optical axis and an electrically driven lens turret that permits a plurality of focus position adjustment lenses to be used interchangeably. Ishikawa further teaches selecting and exchanging adjustment lens 8 to alter the obtainable focus offset quantity. See Ishikawa, [0015], [0058]- [0059], [0061], and [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Ishikawa, to provide an exchange unit that selectively places a focus position adjustment lens in the measurement optical system to correct the condensing position deviation, because Ishikawa teaches that exchanging the adjustment lens changes the available focus offset quantity and thereby allows the optical system to accommodate different required correction amounts.
Regarding claim 12, Heinisch, in view of Stork and Ishikawa, teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the optical element in the measurement optical system includes a plurality of lenses having focal lengths that are different from one another, and wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by selecting one of the plurality of lenses.
Ishikawa further teaches that focus position adjustment lens drive unit 9 includes an electrically driven turret carrying a plurality of interchangeable focus position adjustment lenses and that a selected lens is placed in the optical path through operation of the changeover mechanism. See Ishikawa, [0058]- [0059]. Ishikawa teaches that the obtainable focus offset quantity depends on the focal length of adjustment lens 8, that a lens having a larger focal length produces a larger offset quantity, and that adjustment lens 8 may be exchanged for another lens having a different focal length. See [0072]. CPU 41 controls focus position adjustment lens drive unit 9 and its electrically driven turret. See [0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Ishikawa, to provide a plurality of selectable focus position adjustment lenses having different focal lengths and to select the lens providing the required condensing position correction, because Ishikawa teaches that lens focal length determines the available focus offset quantity, thereby providing discrete and repeatable correction ranges for different wavelength dependent condensing position deviations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch in view of Stork and Deck et al. (US 20020150358 A1, “Deck”).
Regarding claim 9, Heinisch, in view of Stork, fails to explicitly teach the measurement apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting relative positions of a collimator lens as the optical element in the measurement optical system and the first point.
Heinisch in view of Stork, teaches correcting the wavelength-dependent condensing-position deviation by axially adjusting an optical element in the measurement optical system. Heinisch further teaches that spacing-measuring light ray 70 exits the test arm side of second beam splitter cube 90 at the previously mapped first point and is directed through common zoom lens 46 toward tested optical system 62. See Heinisch, Fig. 9 and [0081]- [0083]. However, Heinisch in view of Stork do not explicitly teach a collimator lens relative to the first point.
Deck teaches a fixed light-emission point constituted by fiber exit face 18a or 18e and a corresponding collimating lens 24a or 24e positioned in front of the emission point. Deck explains that the collimating lens converts the spherical wavefront emitted from the point source into a substantially planar wavefront and that the degree of collimation depends on the position of the collimating lens relative to the emission point. When the lens is too close to or too far from the emission point, the wavefront is not sufficiently planar and the beam is defocused. See Deck, [0004]- [0006] and [0022].
Deck further teaches mounting the emission-point package and the collimating-lens array on respective stages, detecting defocus from power or circular interference fringes, and translating the collimating-lens array along the optical axis relative to the fixed emission points to bring the beams into focus. Processing system 50 determines the required translation from the detected interference information, and controller 52 and motor 38 translate second stage 34 carrying the collimating lenses. See Deck, [0026]- [0029] and [0037]- [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Deck, to position an axially movable collimator lens in spacing measuring light path 70 between the fixed first point at second beam splitter cube 90 and zoom lens 46, and to correct the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation by translating the collimator lens relative to the first point. Deck teaches that the axial spacing between a fixed light emission point and a collimator lens determines the curvature of the output wavefront and that translating the collimator relative to the emission point predictably corrects defocus. Applying that arrangement to Heinisch would permit computer 26 to vary the convergence of spacing measuring light 70 entering zoom lens 46 and thereby shift its condensing position to the surface identified by the angle measuring light, improving the returned interference signal strength and surface distance measurement accuracy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch in view of Stork, Ishikawa and Triener et al. (US 20140228225 A1, “Triener”).
Regarding claim 11, Heinisch, in view of Stork and Ishikawa, fails to explicitly teach the measurement apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the optical element in the measurement optical system includes a plurality of parallel plates having thicknesses that are different from one another, and wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by selecting one of the plurality of parallel plates.
Heinisch in view of Stork and Ishikawa, teaches correcting the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation by selectively exchanging an optical correction element in the measurement optical system. In particular, Ishikawa teaches an electrically driven turret carrying a plurality of interchangeable focus position adjustment elements and selecting one of the elements to provide a desired focus offset amount. See Ishikawa [0015], [0058]- [0059], and [0072].
Heinisch in view of Stork and Ishikawa, does not explicitly teach providing a plurality of parallel plates having different thicknesses and selecting one of the plates.
Triener teaches optical device 834 including one or more parallel plates 870 configured to adjust the optical path of optical signals. See Triener, [0193] and Figs. 37- 39. Triener further teaches a plurality of parallel plates 870A- 870C, each having a different value of an optical parameter, including thickness, and determining which plate thickness provides the optimal optical result. Triener explains that selecting among optical components having slightly different thicknesses compensates for unwanted variations from desired optical characteristics and increases the tolerance of the optical system. See [0194].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Triener, to provide a plurality of selectable parallel plates having different thicknesses in the measurement optical system and to select the plate providing the required condensing position correction, because Triener teaches that plates of different thicknesses provide different optical path adjustments and that selecting the plate producing the optimal result compensates for unwanted optical variation and increases the tolerance of the optical system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinisch in view of Stork, Barchers and Diaz et al. (US 20040075919 A1, “Diaz”).
Regarding claim 14, Heinisch, in view of Stork and Barchers, fails to explicitly teach the measurement apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the optical element in the measurement optical system includes a parallel plate that includes two glasses and has a variable thickness, and wherein the correction unit corrects the condensing position deviation by adjusting the thickness of the parallel plate.
Heinisch in view of Stork and Barchers, teaches correcting the wavelength dependent condensing position deviation by adjusting the shape of an optical element in the measurement optical system, but does not explicitly teach that the optical element is a variable thickness parallel plate comprising two glass members.
Diaz teaches transparent refractive element 250 comprising first and second wedges 310 and 315, which may be formed from glass. The wedges have opposing sloped surfaces 314 and 316 and parallel outer entrance and exit surfaces 312 and 318. Diaz further teaches translating second wedge 315 relative to first wedge 310, or moving both wedges in opposite directions, so that the combined glass thickness traversed by optical path 200 continuously changes. See Diaz, Fig. 4 and [0020] and [0046]- [0051]. Accordingly, relative movement of the two glass wedges adjusts both the effective shape and thickness of the combined parallel sided optical element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Heinisch, as taught by Diaz, to provide in the measurement optical system a variable thickness optical element comprising first and second glass wedges and to correct the condensing position deviation by translating at least one wedge relative to the other, because Diaz teaches that changing the combined glass thickness traversed by the light provides continuous and precise adjustment of the optical path and effective focal position without changing the physical distance between the ends of the optical path, thereby permitting accurate correction of the spacing measuring light condensing position without translating the tested optical system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Högele et al. (US 20170245755 A1), teaches system for optical coherence tomography, comprising a zoomable kepler system
Gilles Fresquet (US 20130038863 A1), teaches optical device and method for inspecting structured objects
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights