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 .
Restriction
In the applicant’s response filed on 2-16-2026 to the examiner’s requirement for restriction they have mistakenly withdrawn claims 5, 6, 11, & 19 which the examiner listed as generic. The examiner has reinstated those claims and they are no longer considered withdrawn. The applicant should appropriately note this in the next submitted set of claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (2021/0278201) (Xu) in view of Doerband (PGPub 2012/0236316) (Doerband).
Regarding Claims 1 & 19, Xu discloses a partially nulling optical metrology system for measurement of large aperture and freeform optical surfaces (Fig. 1), the metrology system comprising:
a first mirror (103) having a plurality of degrees of freedom of motion (Paragraph 27). The mirror is translatable in XYZ and rotatable around Y;
one or more optical elements (102, 104) comprising reconfigurable optical elements;
and a controller (109);
the metrology system configured to be optically coupled to an externally located surface under test (SUT) (107) and to capture measurement data from each of a plurality of individual subapertures (SAs) across an area of the SUT, each SA having a surface area smaller than that of the SUT (Fig. 2, Paragraphs 12, & 31); and
the metrology system configured to provide partial nulling of each of the SA measurements across the SUT, based on controlled adjustment of one or more of: the metrology system and the optical elements thereof (Paragraphs 27, & 37-39);
wherein a position of the metrology system relative to the SUT is adjustable (Paragraph 33). The SUT is adjusted in position relative to the interferometer;
wherein the reconfigurable optical elements are adjustable relative to the SUT (Paragraphs 27, & 37);
wherein the first mirror is adjustable relative to the SUT (Paragraphs 27, & 37); and
wherein the measurement data, comprising measurements relating to the plurality of individual SAs is stitched to describe a full surface of the SUT (Paragraphs 3, & 4);
Xu fails to explicitly disclose the metrology system being coupled to a moveable mount and the controller operable to adjust the position of the metrology system;
However, Doerband discloses the metrology system being coupled to a moveable mount and the controller operable to adjust the position (25) of the metrology system (Paragraph 39);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu with the metrology system being coupled to a moveable mount and the controller operable to adjust the position of the metrology system because this is functionally equivalent to moving the stage and would be done for such reasons as cost, ease of moving the interferometer rather than the stage, and availability of parts.
The method of Claim 19 is also met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first mirror comprises a beam steering mirror, wherein the beam steering mirror is reconfigurable, having six degrees of freedom of motion;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu as modified by Doerband with wherein the first mirror comprises a beam steering mirror, wherein the beam steering mirror is reconfigurable, having six degrees of freedom of motion because mirrors with 6 degrees of freedom of movement are known and would be an improvement by allowing for a greater range of angles to be achieved.
Regarding Claim 3, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Further, Xu discloses a second mirror (104) which is a relay mirror;
Xu as modified by Doerband fails to explicitly disclose the relay mirror is reconfigurable, having six degrees of freedom of motion;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu as modified by Doerband with the relay mirror is reconfigurable, having six degrees of freedom of motion because mirrors with 6 degrees of freedom of movement are known and would be an improvement by allowing for a greater range of angles to be achieved.
Regarding Claim 4, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Further, Xu discloses wherein the first and second mirrors being adjustable relative to the SUT, and the plurality of SAs, across the SUT; and wherein the position of the first and second mirrors is controllable to provide a partial nulling of the individual SA measurements across the SUT (Paragraphs 27, & 37-39).
Regarding Claim 5, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Xu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the position of the metrology system is adjustable to allow positioning of the metrology system such that measurements are made substantially normal to the SUT, and the plurality of SAs, across the SUT;
However, Doerband discloses adjusting the mirrors so that the measurement beam strikes the SUT at a normal incidence (Paragraph 37);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Xu with wherein the position of the metrology system is adjustable to allow positioning of the metrology system such that measurements are made substantially normal to the SUT, and the plurality of SAs, across the SUT because this angle of incidence offers an accurate measurement of the surface shaped without distortion which would be present in a non-normal angle of incidence.
Regarding Claim 6, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Further, Xu discloses configured to measure wavefront errors of the optical surface of the SUT, by measuring wavefront errors from each of a plurality of individual overlapping SAs of the SUT, each SA having a surface area smaller than that of the SUT (Fig. 2), and wherein a reconstruction of the optical surface, is provided by the plurality of partially nulled overlapping subaperture measurements (Paragraph 3 & 4). The apparatus of Xu is capable of measuring wavefront errors thus the limitation is met. Further, the measurement of wavefront errors is implicit in the device.
Regarding Claim 7, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Further, Xu discloses wherein the controller (109) is configured to control the position of one or more of the: metrology system, the first mirror, and the second mirror, to position an optical beam on the SUT, as required (Paragraph 37).
Regarding Claim 11, Xu as modified by Doerband discloses the aforementioned. Further, Xu discloses an interferometer (101), wherein the measurement data from each of the SAs comprises phase maps or interference fringe data (this is inherent with an interferometer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 April 2, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877