DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “directing a second reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The examiner notes that Fig. 6 does show two black boxes with two beams (232 and 232’) going between them. However, the examiner is unclear how applicant is duplicating the reference path in black box 212. Figure 2 which contains the “transmitter optical component” 12 (equivalent in some manner to 212) shows the use of a basic beam splitter 20, a mirror 24 and an output path to the sample 30. It is not entirely clear how this system would be modified to arrive at the output of two reference arms. For example are two light sources side by side used, two beam splitters with a corresponding two reference mirrors, a tilted mirror where applicant is referring to one arm as one part of the mirror vs the other tilted part of the mirror? None of this is clearly disclosed or shown in the instant disclosure or drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0011091 A1) in view of Perea et al (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0224266 A1) in view of Leizerson et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0116358 A1) further in view of Seitz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,268,921 B1).
As to claim 1, Acker discloses and shows in figure 1, a method of producing a pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images, comprising:
reflecting a target illumination beam (30) off of a target surface (54) via a transmitter optical component (12) of a shearography system ([0001]; [0016], ll. 5-11);
directing a first reference beam (i.e. light going towards reflector 24, beam 32) from the transmitter optical component to a receiving optical component (14) of the shearography system, wherein the first reference beam is defined at a zero degree phase shift ([0016], ll. 5-13; [0049], where W1 has a 0 degree phase shift as disclosed);
receiving a reflected beam from the target surface with the receiving optical component ([0017], ll. 9-16);
interfering the reflected beam with the first reference beam ([0065], ll. 1-5);
wherein the first collected data and the second collected data are collected at a fist time interval ([0044]; where since applicant has in no way defined any requirements for the time interval, inherently one can define a “time interval” that encompasses both the first and second collected data)
communicating a first data set relating to an processor-generated specklegram images from the receiving optical component to a processor (58) ([0043], ll. 1-3; [0065], ll. 5-16); and
processing the first data set to generate an processor-generated specklegram images, wherein the processing included global phase stepping of the reference wave ([0043], ll. 1-3; [0045]; [0065], ll. 5-16).
Acker does disclose using a reference wave with a phase shift amount set to 90 degrees in ([0050])
Acker does not explicitly disclose using a second reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component or where the interfering is done with the second reference beam or in doing so generating a pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images
However, Perea does disclose and show in figure 1 and in ([0012], ll. 1-3; [0015], ll. 1-3) the use of using a splitter (114) to generate two reference beams where either of which can be interpreted as the second reference beam which transmits to a receiving optical component (e.g. 122). In using a second reference arm as is extremely common in interferometrics one can generate multiple interference patterns at varying delays and commonly as a result varying depths of the sample under test. In doing so the light is obviously effectively relayed from both refence arms to simultaneously overlap with that from the measurement arm, to generate the “simultaneous” images as claimed. Obviously, the phase shift of 90 degrees as disclosed in ([0050]) of Acker can be used here for the second arm for the same advantage and modification provided by Perea. In other words obviously the second reference arm would have a phase shift and using that as disclosed by Acker already would be obvious, and doing so would allow simultaneous measurement of 0 and 90 degree phase shifts of the sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker with using a second reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component or where the interfering is done with the second reference beam or in doing so generating a pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as is well-known in the interferometric art (so much so to have an explicitly defined CPC subgroup) using multiple reference arms allows gathering varying optical path delay interferometric measurements, thus yielding a rapid and more detailed representation of the sample under test.
Acker again does disclose the use of collecting two data sets (W1 and W2) and processing those two data sets to generate a set of specklegram images ([0041]; [0043]; [0045], ll. 18-22; [0046], ll. 1-5, where W1 and W2 each contain specklegram calculations as disclosed as such they are clearly at some point generated by the processor as disclosed in Acker)
Acker in view of Perea does not explicitly disclose wherein the receiving optical component includes a first beam sensor and a second beam sensor; collecting first collected data, by the first beam sensor, relating to a recombination and/or interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting second collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the second collected data is different than the first collected data; wherein the first collected data includes a phase difference between the first reference beam and the second reference beam; communicating the first data set relating to the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images collected data and the second collected data from the receiving optical component to a processor; and processing the first data set collected data and the second collected data to generate the pair of simultaneous processor-generated ]specklegram images.
However, Leizerson does disclose and show in figures 2 and 4R and in ([0057]; [0063], ll. 1-5; [0066], ll. 1-8; [0068]; [0070]; [0145]) the use of a dual interferometric system that uses multiple detectors 218 and 228 capable of simultaneous measurement of the sample under test. In other words the use of collecting first and second beam data from each respective beam sensor, inherently the second data is distinct from the first data in being at as suggest different locations on the sample under test (i.e. at least partial overlap). The signals from the detectors are communicated to processor 230 via 219 and 229. Obviously during light emission at simultaneous times, the signals 219 and 229 will arrive at analysis unit 230 at the same time and be used to calculate specklegrams from each data output at effectively simultaneous times. The examiner notes for compact prosecution that the feature of a second detector coupled with data collecting and analysis is merely one of a duplication of parts of the known parts as taught by Acker in view of Perea and therefore obvious. Since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further inherently the result of the noted modification is that the second collected data includes a phase difference between the first and second reference beams as a 0 to 90 degree change provides this intended result.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker in view of Perea wherein the receiving optical component includes a first beam sensor and a second beam sensor; collecting first collected data, by the first beam sensor, relating to a recombination and/or interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting second collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the second collected data is different than the first collected data; wherein the first collected data includes a phase difference between the first reference beam and the second reference beam; communicating the first data set relating to the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images collected data and the second collected data from the receiving optical component to a processor; and processing the first data set collected data and the second collected data to generate the pair of simultaneous processor-generated ]specklegram images in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency as obviously using a second detector to measure/collect/process light from the sample under test obviously yields a more rapid and accurate measurement of the sample under test vs using a single detector and sequential measurements.
Acker in view of Perea further in view of Leizerson does not explicitly disclose where the phase shift is a function of the transmitter optical component and prior to being received by the receiving optical component.
However, Seitz does disclose and show in figures 3 and 10E and in (col. 2, ll. 15-32; col. 7, ll. 17-27; col. 8, ll. 20-26) the basic concept of replacing a reference mirror that is modulated via movement to generate phase shifts as is done with Acker with a more rapid and well-known reference mirror with stepped reference surfaces allowing the simultaneous stepping/phase shifting of the input wavefront so that varying distances in the measurement path can be interference and measured. This modification provides the result of the phase shifts happening prior to the light beam being received by the receiving optical component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker in view of Perea further in view of Leizerson where the phase shift is a function of the transmitter optical component and prior to being received by the receiving optical component in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency in using a common reference mirror design as explicitly noted by Seitz results in an instantaneous result of a plurality of depth points or three-dimensional image of a portion of the object under test. (col. 2, ll. 26-31).
The examiner notes for compact prosecution that due to the instant independent claim requiring the disclosure of the continuation-in-part the effective earliest priority date of claims 1-9 is that of the CIP filing date 03/22/2024.
As to claim 2, Acker as modified by Perea in view of Leizerson further in view of Seitz discloses a method, wherein the first reference beam is free from any phase shift; and wherein the second reference beam is altered at a 90 degree phase shift by the transmitter optical component and prior to being received by the receiving optical component ([0049], [0050]; where for the same modification and motivation the two reference arms as modified by Perea and Seitz can be set as disclosed to the noted phase shifts of Acker, further Seitz as disclosed above and for the same modification/motivation results in the beam being shifted prior to being received by the receiving optical component).
As to claim 3, Acker as modified by Perea discloses a method, further comprising: detecting a first object beneath the target surface with a first optimal shear length in one processor-generated specklegram image of the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images; and detecting a second object beneath the target surface with a second optimal shear length in another processor-generated specklegram image of the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images (claim 2 from the prior art Acker; the examiner notes again that the only distinction over the cited claim 2 is the images being generated simultaneously which is a result of the modification already provided above with Perea, as such the limitations are met by the same modification and motivation listed above).
As to claim 4, Acker discloses a method, further comprising: calculating a response of at least one of the first and second objects relative to a shear length and a shear direction of the shearography system (Claim 3 from prior art Acker).
As to claim 5, Acker as modified by Perea does not disclose a method, further comprising: moving the transmitter optical component and the receiver optical component from a first location relative to the target surface to a second location relative to the target surface; reflecting the target illumination beam off of the target surface in the second location; directing the first reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component; directing the second reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component; receiving the reflected beam from the target surface in the second location; interfering the reflected beam with the first reference beam and the second reference beam; collecting third collected data, by the first beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting fourth collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the fourth collected data is different than the third collected data due to the difference in phases between the first reference beam and the second reference beam; wherein the third collected data and the fourth collected data are collected at a second time interval; communicating a second data set relating to the reflected beam the third collected data and the fourth collected data from the receiving optical component to the processor; and processing the second data set the third collected data and the fourth collected data to generate a second pair of simultaneous processor-generated images, wherein the processing includes applying phase shifts to the reference wave to compute interference patterns.
However, Leizerson does disclose and show in figures 2 and 4R and in ([0057]; [0063], ll. 1-5; [0066]; [0068]; [0070]; [0145]) as disclosed the scanning via the multiple sensor system of a plurality of sensing regions 94. As such the same direction and collection and processing of the two sensors beams from the sample under test in the form of third and further collected data is known and obvious. Likewise obviously these second set of collected data points can be processor to form a second pair of processor-generated images. Further as already disclosed in Acker ([0040]; [0065]) the use of generating multiple shear lengths (i.e. applying phase shifts algorithmically to compute interference patterns) is known. As such obviously the third and fourth collected data as taught by Leizerson could be used to generate a multitude of new shearographic images via processing as taught by Acker. Again where the “second time interval” as claimed is so broad as to encompass any amount of time, obviously the time required and taught by Leizerson can be interpreted as a “second time interval”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker as modified by Perea with a method, further comprising: moving the transmitter optical component and the receiver optical component from a first location relative to the target surface to a second location relative to the target surface; reflecting the target illumination beam off of the target surface in the second location; directing the first reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component; directing the second reference beam from the transmitter optical component to the receiving optical component; receiving the reflected beam from the target surface in the second location; interfering the reflected beam with the first reference beam and the second reference beam; collecting third collected data, by the first beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting fourth collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the fourth collected data is different than the third collected data due to the difference in phases between the first reference beam and the second reference beam; wherein the third collected data and the fourth collected data are collected at a second time interval; communicating a second data set relating to the reflected beam the third collected data and the fourth collected data from the receiving optical component to the processor; and processing the second data set the third collected data and the fourth collected data to generate a second pair of simultaneous processor-generated images, wherein the processing includes applying phase shifts to the reference wave to compute interference patterns in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as scanning multiple areas of the sample under test yielding the second pair or more of simultaneous processor generated images provides a more detailed representation of the sample under test.
As to claim 6, Acker does disclose the reference beams being at a zero degree and 90 degree phase shift ([0049]-[0050)
Acker does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first reference beam is defined at a zero degree phase shift; and wherein the second reference beam is defined at a 90 degree phase shift.
However, Perea does disclose and show in figure 1 and in ([0012], ll. 1-3; [0015], ll. 1-3) the use of using a splitter (114) to generate two reference beams where either of which can be interpreted as the second reference beam which transmits to a receiving optical component (e.g. 122). In using a second reference arm as is extremely common in interferometrics one can generate multiple interference patterns at varying delays and commonly as a result varying depths of the sample under test. In doing so the light is obviously effectively relayed from both refence arms to simultaneously overlap with that from the measurement arm, to generate the “simultaneous” images as claimed. Setting them at the two disclosed phase shifts of Acker obviously results in the ability to reduce processing time by moving the system from a common sequential measurement to a simultaneous measurement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker wherein the first reference beam is defined at a zero degree phase shift; and wherein the second reference beam is defined at a 90 degree phase shift.in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency, in using the two reference arms of Perea one can move the system from sequentially performing the two phase shift measurements as done in Acker, with simultaneous measurement of the two reference arm phase shift values.
As to claims 7-9, Acker as modified by Perea does not explicitly disclose a method, further comprising: detecting a third object beneath the target surface with a third optimal shear length in one processor-generated specklegram image of the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images; and detecting a fourth object beneath the target surface with a fourth optimal shear length in another processor-generated specklegram image of the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images or calculating a response of at least one of the third and fourth objects relative to a second shear length and a second shear direction of the shearography system or combining the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images and the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images together to form a shearogram.
However, Acker does disclose in ([0040]; [0044]; [0048]-[0053]; and claim 2 of the prior art) the concept of finding optimal shear length for each object buried with the target surface. Further that two target positions are measured, where obviously the objects at position two can be said to be third and fourth objects (similar to the first and second objects discloses as being found at position 1). Lastly, Acker discloses that shearograms are a function of two specklegrams. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to detect third and fourth objects beneath the target surface, combine that information with that of the first and second object as this obviously result in a more detailed representation of the target under test (i.e. it would result in first thru fourth objects being represented in the data processed and delivered to the user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Acker as modified by Perea with a method, further comprising: detecting a third object beneath the target surface with a third optimal shear length in one processor-generated specklegram image of the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images; and detecting a fourth object beneath the target surface with a fourth optimal shear length in another processor-generated specklegram image of the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images or calculating a response of at least one of the third and fourth objects relative to a second shear length and a second shear direction of the shearography system or combining the pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images and the second pair of simultaneous processor-generated specklegram images together to form a shearogram in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, detecting third and fourth objects at a second position and combining that with the data from the first and second objects at the first position provide a more complete image for analysis of the sample area under test.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot regarding the newly limitation of “by the transmitter optical component and prior to being received by the receiving optical component”.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner notes that since applicant has not responded to any of the arguments by the examiner in the advisory action mailed 06/23/2026. The arguments below are substantial duplicates of that in the advisory action.
Firstly, the drawing objections are still maintained. Applicant has in some way made the limitation slightly more supported by adding in a beamsplitter to the figures as somewhat supported by [0069]. However, the fundamental concern is that the claimed subject matter is focused entirely on generating and relaying two reference beams one phase shifted by 90 degrees relative to the other. A general beamsplitter as shown in the figure may be capable of producing two reference beams, however nothing disclosed or shown seems to actually detail how light from this beamsplitter would be used to phase shift one reference beam relative to the other. The entire focus of the claim over the prior application by applicant/inventors is to generate two reference beams one phase shifted relative to the other, as such this feature clearly needs to be shown and disclosed. Instead figure 6 merely discloses three black boxes, with now one black box inside the other. As such the objection is still maintained as although generating two reference arms beams with 90 degree phase shifts relative to one another is well known in the interferometric art (i.e. enabled), how applicant is actually doing so is not clearly disclosed or shown. The examiner has provided multiple possibilities of known ways to create two reference arms in the final office action mailed 04/16/2026. The examiner is not clear on an manner in which applicant could resolve this issue as it would seem at this point that any addition to actually detail the claimed subject matter clearly would be new matter.
As to any argument regarding how the instant claim doesn't use heterodyne carrier demodulation, these arguments are considered moot. Nothing in the claim has any relation to frequency or heterodyne in either a positive or negative limitation manner. As such the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could involve using or not using heterodyne detection based schemes.
As to the specifics of the entire system of Perea not teaching the limitation and requiring heterodyne detection. The examiner notes that the only aspect the examiner pulled from Perea was merely the well-known interferometric configuration of a two beam splitter reference arm (similar to a Mach-Zehnder configuration). The entire system obviously was not modified in, merely a simple optical interferometric solution that is well-known in the interferometric art to allow the simultaneous generation of two reference arms. As explicitly noted in the office action Acker already taught a 90 degree phase offset but in sequential mode, Perea merely taught a common and well-known means by which this could be generated in simultaneous and thus more rapid ultimately for measurement efficiency mode. Again heterodyne of Perea is irrelevant as even if for some reason that was add which it is not, the claim in no way limits away from heterodyne based detection.
As to the argument regarding the reference Leizerson, applicant seems to be attacking the reference individually instead of the rejection as a whole. Leizerson as correctly noted by applicant was provided merely to show that one can duplicate the number of detectors in a system to allow the two combined interference patterns to be detected (obviously each with a specific phase shifted reference beam) in a more rapid manner (i.e. sequential vs simultaneous). Applicant's argument that the patterns are "concurrently" collected is not consider persuasive. The claim does not require the noted limitation. Applicant has amended the claim to require "a first time interval" without in any way defining any limits on how short or long that time interval is. As such it can be any number from .1 seconds for example up to hours, as both would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of "interval". For this reason the rejection is maintained.
As to applicant's argument that the rational is not sufficient as provided by the examiner in being faster and more accurate, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly the use of two reference arms provides exactly that, a faster manner by which one can generate interference patterns and analyze a sample or area under test. This concept is so well-known it is a defined and entire subgroup under the interferometer art. "G01B 9/02028 . . . . {Two or more reference or object arms in one interferometer}". As such the concept is explicitly well-known and the examiner's rational is merely the most common reason such a configuration is provided. As to the second modification/motivation. Using two detectors instead of one is not only obvious in interferometric but in all of optical measuring and testing. Obviously if two wavefronts/patterns/beams are used in an optical system instead of overlapping them on one detector one having ordinary skill in the art can provide them to two detectors to reduce noise and allow more precise measurement of each respective wavefronts/patterns/beams. For these reasons the rejections are maintained as applicant has not provided a persuasive argument over the prior art of record. Heterodyne or not is again not anything the claim has limited itself away from.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights