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 .
Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the present application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements dated 19 December 2023 and 04 March 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 10, line 4, the limitation “a second light splitter” intentionally has not been rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). This limitation has been construed as referring to the “second light splitter” recited in the remainder of the written and illustrated portions of the present specification. The “second light splitter” corresponds to element 70 in Figure 1, where the “first light splitter” corresponds to element 140 in Figure 4 and is a separate and distinct component from the second light splitter.
It is respectfully suggested that applicant review all pending claims for grammar errors (at least claims 3 and 12).
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.
Claims 5 and 10-21 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.
Re: claims 5 and 14, the meaning of the limitation “the objective lens sets are arranged in an array in the accommodating vias” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the recited array is the same array as the array recited earlier in the claim. For the purpose of examining the claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to an array differing from the earlier-recited array.
Re: claim 10, the limitation “the illumination beam from the second light splitter to the to-be-measured object” on page 2, line 25 – page 3, line 1 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
In addition, the limitation “the transmission path of the measuring beam from the lens barrel module” on page 3, lines 22-23 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “generate imaging information according to the measuring beam” in lines 23-24 is unclear. It is not understood what information the measuring beam could provide that would serve as a basis from which imaging information could be generated or otherwise ascertained.
Re: claims 11-21, because they depend upon claim 11, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 21, the meaning of the second instance of the limitation “a number of the at least one imaging element” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the second instance of the limitation is intended to refer to the same number as that recited in the first instance of the limitation. For the purpose of examining the claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the same number as the first instance of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20200249455).
Re: claim 1, Chan discloses an array objective lens module 60, 134 (Figs. 7, 10), having an optical axis (para. 50, Fig. 7) and comprising: a substrate 132, 168 (Fig. 10), comprising an accommodating via (Fig. 10 discloses via into which optic 62 and frame 164 are disposed), wherein the accommodating via comprises an internal thread structure (Fig. 10 discloses that the internal circumference of element 132, which faces inwardly into the accommodating via, has threads that engage with the threads on element 164); a lens frame 164, respectively disposed in the accommodating via (disposition disclosed in Fig. 10), wherein the lens frame 164 comprises an external thread structure 166 (Fig. 10), and the external thread structure is adapted to the internal thread structure (corresponding adaptation of the complementary threads disclosed in Fig. 10); and a plurality of objective lens sets 134 (para. 73 discloses group of lenses), respectively disposed in the lens frame 164 (disposition disclosed in Fig. 10), wherein the objective lens set comprises at least one lens 134 (para. 73 discloses plurality of lenses 134), and a relative position of the lens frame 164 and the substrate in an extension direction of the optical axis changes according to a relative rotation angle (Fig. 9 discloses rotation) of the corresponding external thread structure 166 and internal thread structure (capability disclosed in Fig. 10 & para. 78).
While Chan does not disclose a plurality of accommodating vias, a plurality of lens frames, and a plurality of objective lens sets, Chan does disclose a single accommodating via (Fig. 10 discloses via into which optic 62 and frame 164 are disposed) and a single lens frame 164, and further discloses a plurality of lenses 134 (para. 73). The presence of a plurality of lenses infers that a plurality of lenses and accommodating vias into which the plurality of lenses are inserted may also be present. In addition, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04). Hence, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date to have a plurality of accommodating vias, lens frames, and objective lens sets for the purpose of having multiple lens combinations of magnification powers and/or focal plane settings under which the sample can be viewed.
Re: claim 2, Chan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Chan further discloses a first light splitter 144 (Fig. 7), disposed on a transmission path of an illumination beam from the objective lens sets 134 (disposition disclosed in Fig. 7) and used to partially transmit and partially reflect light (beam-splitters inherently have this property); and a reflector 90, 60, 62, 54 (Fog. 7; para. 52 discloses light being propagated/reflected from element 66 to detector 56; para. 53 discloses that reflector 90 includes 54, 60, 62), disposed between the first light splitter 144 and the substrate (Figs. 7, 10, where the substrate is within element 60), wherein the illumination beam passes through the objective lens set 134 and reaches the first light splitter 144 (Fig. 7), the illumination beam comprises a first beam reflected by the first light splitter and a second beam passing through the first light splitter to a to-be-measured object 72 (Fig. 7, where the beam is split by beamsplitter 144), and the reflector is used to reflect the first beam to the first light splitter (usage capability disclosed in Fig. 7).
Re: claim 5, Chan discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Chan further discloses that the accommodating vias of the substrate are arranged in an array (1 x 1 array disclosed in Fig. 10), the lens frames and the objective lens sets are arranged in an array in the accommodating vias (arrangement in 1 x 1 array disclosed in Fig. 10), and the extension direction of the optical axis of the array objective lens module is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 8, where substrate portion 132 extends horizontally while the optical axis extends vertically).
Re: claim 6, Chan discloses the limitations of claim 5, and Chan further discloses that a number of the lens frames and the objective lens sets in a first direction is equal to the number in a second direction (Fig. 10, each includes a single element), the first direction and the second direction are both perpendicular to the extension direction of the optical axis of the array objective lens module, and the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (Fig. 10, where both the frames and lens sets are 1 x 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4 and 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871