DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application, where the independent claim 10 and some dependent claims have been amended. New claim 20 has been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments, and arguments, and acknowledges they overcome the minor Abstract objection, the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 9/16/2025
The above objection/rejections are therefore here withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicants’ arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of pending claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
4- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claim 10 under 35 USC §102 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action.
5- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
6- here is a brief response to the Arguments presented by the Applicants to explain further the rationale behind the new rejections and the Examiner’s interpretations.
Applicants argue in their response (pp. 9-10) that Raicu fails to teach a linear array.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants and notes that claim 1 pertains to the first camera “comprising a linear array of photodetectors” and not “consisting of a linear array of photodetectors”. Raicu’s camera is presented in parag. 50 as an array of pixels, i.e. comprises a multiplicity of linear arrays of photodetectors, i.e. at least one linear array.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
7- 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.
8- 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) is/are:
Line generator in claims 1 and 10,
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.
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 § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10- Claim 1 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raicu et al. (PGPUB No. 2012/0257196)
As to claims 1, Raicu teaches an apparatus for photoluminescent imaging of a sample (Abstract, Figs. 1-25), comprising: a sample holder (162) for holding said sample (123); a first light source (134/136) for emitting a first light beam (138) of a cross-sectional size; a first symmetric beam expander for expanding said first light beam (139 or 202/146/147 and equivalents); beam shaping optics (system 140, 202 or 252 for ex. ) for shaping and focusing said first light beam into a line on a surface of the sample; wherein the beam shaping optics comprise a line generator for increasing the size of the first light beam in a first direction while uniformizing an intensity distribution of said first light beam in said first direction (Figs. 2, 4-5, 7-8, Abstract and ¶ 7-13, 60-75); a first camera (116, 158 for ex.) comprising a linear array of photodetectors for detecting photoluminescent light (¶ 50, 84); a first imaging dichroic optical element (150) for directing the first light beam onto an objective (152) and for directing photoluminescent light emitted by the sample to the first camera (Figs. 2, 4, 7 for ex.), a collimator (module 202/146/147/149 and equivalents) for collimating the first light beam along the first direction and for focusing it along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 4-5 ¶ 61 for ex.), a field lens (147) and the objective (Figs. 2, 5; 152).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12- Claim 4-6, 8-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raicu
As to claims 4-6, Raicu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Moreover, Raicu teaches: further comprising: producing a second light beam; expanding the second light beam; and shaping the second light beam into a second line on the inspection site on the surface of the sample, wherein: shaping the second light beam into said second line is performed by using the combination of the same line generator, collimator, field lens and objective as for shaping the first light beam into said first line, and a pair of achromatic lenses is used as the collimator and a further pair of achromatic lenses is used as the field lens; wherein the apparatus further comprises: a second light source for emitting a second light beam (¶ 51, 137; 136); a second beam expander for expanding said second light beam (same as for the first light beam, or a subset of rays within the first light beam can be construed as first light/line and another subset as the second light/line, since the second beam expander, and the light beams/lines are not claimed to be distinct, adjacent, separated and/or different); and a first illumination dichroic optical element for guiding the first light beam and the second light beam into a common light path, wherein the collimator comprises a pair of achromatic lenses, and the field lens comprises a pair of achromatic lenses; (claim 5) wherein the achromatic lenses of the collimator have at least one convex surface and said achromatic lenses are arranged with their convex surfaces facing in the same direction; (claim 6) wherein the achromatic lenses of the field lens have at least one convex surface and said achromatic lenses are arranged with their convex surfaces facing toward each another (see rejection of claim 3. Achromatic lenses, and their respective dispositions, are obvious to a PHOSITA to reduce optical aberrations in the beams formed thereby. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
As to claims 8-9, Raicu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Raicu does not teach expressly wherein the apparatus further comprises a third light source, a second camera, a second illumination dichroic optical element arranged between said third light source and the objective, and a second imaging dichroic optical element arranged between the objective and said second camera; (claim 9) wherein said third light source is a light emitting diode.
However, Raicu suggests, Fig. 22 and ¶ 137 for ex., using multiple lasers at different wavelengths, with multiple dichroic mirrors, to be used with objective 152 towards the arrays of detectors (158), i.e. first and second camera; the dichroic mirrors being placed between the objective and the cameras (Fig. 22). Moreover, the selection of the LED species appears obvious among the limited genus of light sources, and for cost effectiveness advantages (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of use of Raicu so that the apparatus further comprises a third light source, a second camera, a second illumination dichroic optical element arranged between said third light source and the objective, and a second imaging dichroic optical element arranged between the objective and said second camera; wherein said third light source is a light emitting diode, with the advantage of effectively performing spectroscopic analyses, of a substantial surface of the sample, with different pumping laser wavelengths.
13- Claims 2-3, 7, 10-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raicu in view of Feng et al. (PGPUB No. 2007/0114362)
As to amended claim 10, Raicu teaches a method for photoluminescent imaging of a sample, comprising: providing a sample on a sample holder; producing a first light beam; expanding said first light beam; shaping the first light beam into a first line; focusing the first light beam onto an inspection site on a surface of the sample, thereby illuminating said inspection site; capturing, on a line of pixels, photoluminescence emitted by the sample in response to said illuminating by the first light beam; scanning substantially the whole surface of said sample with said first line; wherein shaping the first light beam into a first line and focusing the first light beam onto an inspection site on a surface of the sample are performed by using a combination of a line generator, a collimator, a field lens and an objective (see rejection of claim 1); scanning substantially the whole surface of said sample with said first line (¶ 59 for ex).
Raicu does not teach expressly the line of pixels being a single line of pixels, even though Raicu teaches in Fig. 15, ¶ 91 that the measurement scans, are performed at one single line of pixels 410 at a time, with spacing 414 to prevent any overlap.
Moreover, in a similar field of endeavor, Feng teaches a confocal imaging method and apparatus (Abstract and Figs. 1-16), and discloses, Fig. 3 and ¶ 74 for ex, wherein using single line pixels is expressly taught using line scan ccd camera 29 with baffles 71, to limit light to only one line of the ccd camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Raicu in view of Feng’s suggestions so that the line of pixels being a single line of pixels, with the advantage of effectively using one single line imaging scan at a time and avoid cross talk and overlap between the scanned lines.
Moreover, Raicu teaches:
(claim 18) further comprising: producing a second light beam; expanding the second light beam; and shaping the second light beam into a second line on the inspection site on the surface of the sample, wherein: shaping the second light beam into said second line is performed by using the combination of the same line generator, collimator, field lens and objective as for shaping the first light beam into said first line, and a pair of achromatic lenses is used as the collimator and a further pair of achromatic lenses is used as the field lens (same as for the first light beam, or a subset of rays within the first light beam can be construed as first light/line and another subset as the second light/line, since the second beam expander, and the light beams/lines are not claimed to be distinct, adjacent, separated and/or different); and a first illumination dichroic optical element for guiding the first light beam and the second light beam into a common light path, wherein the collimator comprises a pair of achromatic lenses, and the field lens comprises a pair of achromatic lenses (see rejection of claim 3. Achromatic lenses, and their respective dispositions, are obvious to a PHOSITA to reduce optical aberrations in the beams formed thereby. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
(Claim 13) wherein the first line and the second line has a first length and a second length respectively, wherein said first length and said second length are smaller than a diameter of said sample (Fig. 7 for ex.).
(Claim 14) wherein said scanning is performed by relative movement of said sample and said first line at the inspection site in a first direction that is orthogonal to said first line and by relative movement of said sample and said first line at the inspection site in a second direction that is parallel to said first line; (Claim 16) wherein moving the sample at the inspection site along the first direction is performed by linear movement of said sample along the first direction, and moving said sample along said second direction is performed by linear movement of said sample along the second direction (Figs. 2-4, 6-8 and ¶ 56 for ex.)
(Claim 17) wherein at least two rectangular images are constructed from the captured lines of pixels, and said rectangular images are stitched together to form a single image showing the whole sample surface (Fig. 7 and ¶ 3).
As to claims 2-3, 11-12, Raicu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 and the combination of Raicu and Feng teaches the method claim 10.
Raicu does not teach expressly (claims 2, 11) wherein the line generator is formed by a Powell lens; (claims 3, 12) wherein the collimator comprises a pair of focusing lenses, and the field lens comprises a further pair of focusing lenses.
However, Feng teaches a confocal imaging method and apparatus wherein the line generator is formed by a Powell lens (¶ 38); wherein the collimator comprises a pair of focusing lenses (22), and the field lens comprises a further pair of focusing lenses (23) (Figs. 3, 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Raicu in view of Feng’s suggestions so that the line generator is formed by a Powell lens; wherein the collimator comprises a pair of focusing lenses, and the field lens comprises a further pair of focusing lenses, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the line forming of the incident light and its flat-top uniform intensity and the control of the collimation of the incident beam and the signal beam.
As to claims 7 and 20, Raicu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 and the combination of Raicu and Feng teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Moreover, Raicu teaches wherein an asymmetric beam expander is arranged between the first light source and the line generator and (claim 20) wherein an asymmetric beam expander is arranged between the first light source and the line generator, or between the second light source and the line generator, or both, wherein said asymmetric beam expander comprises a pair of cylindrical lenses (Fig. 2, 5 and ¶ 61 for ex.; cylindrical lenses, asymmetric in expander 139).
Raicu does not teach wherein said asymmetric beam expander comprises a pair of cylindrical lenses.
However, Feng suggests using cylindrical lenses (¶ 38, 59, 78, 82). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use cylindrical lenses for the beam expander, instead of the cylindrical mirrors of Raicu (Fig. 5) as mere suitable alternatives See MPEP § 2144.07 for ex.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Raicu in view of Feng’s suggestions so that said asymmetric beam expander comprises a pair of cylindrical lenses, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the line forming of the incident light and its flat-top uniform intensity and the control of the collimation of the incident beam and the signal beam.
As to claims 15, 19, the combination of Raicu and Feng teaches the method of claim 14 and of claim 10.
Raicu does not teach expressly (claim 19) further comprising: producing a third light beam; guiding said third light beam onto the surface of said sample, wherein said third light beam is at least partially reflected from the surface to produce a reflected third light beam; and capturing at least a portion of said reflected third light beam; (claim 15) wherein moving the sample at the inspection site along the first direction is performed by rotation of said sample around a center of said sample, and moving said sample along said second direction is performed by linear movement of said sample along a radial direction of said sample.
However, Raicu suggests, Fig. 22 and ¶ 137 for ex., using multiple lasers at different wavelengths, with multiple dichroic mirrors, to be used with objective 152 towards the arrays of detectors (158), i.e. first and second camera; the dichroic mirrors being placed between the objective and the cameras (Fig. 22). Moreover, the selection of the LED species appears obvious among the limited genus of light sources, and for cost effectiveness advantages (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered). As to claim 15, one PHOSITA would find it similarly obvious to use a radial/polar type of scanning species, among a limited genus of geometric scanning group, as a mere alternative to the cartesian scanning taught by Raicu (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of use of Raicu so that the apparatus further comprising: producing a third light beam; guiding said third light beam onto the surface of said sample, wherein said third light beam is at least partially reflected from the surface to produce a reflected third light beam; and capturing at least a portion of said reflected third light beam; wherein moving the sample at the inspection site along the first direction is performed by rotation of said sample around a center of said sample, and moving said sample along said second direction is performed by linear movement of said sample along a radial direction of said sample, with the advantage of effectively performing spectroscopic analyses, of a substantial surface of the sample, with different pumping laser wavelengths.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877