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 .
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 § 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 1-9 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.
As to claim 1 and 5, the examiner is unclear why applicant is using the language “and/or” with the linked limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “and/or” includes merely “or”. The examiner finds it unclear how the invention could recombine but not interfere the light and produce specklegrams, or likewise interfere the light without recombination. The phrase should seemingly merely read “and” as the light is clearly in all cases both recombined light of a reflected beam and a reference beam and simultaneously interfered light as a function of being recombined. As such for examination purposes the examiner is interpreting “and/or” to read “and”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All the limitations of dependent claim 2 have been added to independent claim 1. As such claim 2 is no longer further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) further in view of Leizerson et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0116358 A1).
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);
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 ([0043], ll. 1-3; [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/or interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the second collected data is different than the first collected data; 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 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.
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/or interference of the reflected beam with the second reference beam, wherein the second collected data is different than the first collected data; 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 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.
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 discloses a method, 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 ([0049], [0050]; where for the same modification and motivation the two reference arms as modified by Perea can be set as disclosed to the noted phase shifts of Acker).
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/or interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting fourth collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and/or 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; 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.
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.
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/or interference of the reflected beam with the first reference beam; collecting fourth collected data, by the second beam sensor, relating to a recombination and/or 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; 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 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 because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes for clarity of record that the drawing objection is still partially maintained. To put it as concise as possible for clarity, the examiner is unclear how applicant is generating both the first and second reference beam as claimed simultaneously with the single “transmitter optical component” as claimed. The drawings fail to show how two reference beams phase shifted from one another are created. The only block that shows these features is figure 6, where two black boxes have two lines going between each other. This does not clearly disclose the claimed limitations.
Prior art made of record
a. Wang et al. (CN 110108223 A) disclose sand shows in figure 2 and the abstract, the use of a shearing speckle interference interferometer that uses two reference beams designated by 10 and dotted line fiber that splices off of the mirror directly after output from laser 101.
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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