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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Species 1, Claims 1-5, 8-14, 17-18 in the reply filed on 10/29/25 with traverse is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species do not overlap in scope, that is fail to provide any reasoning or analysis explaining why the asserted species should be considered as reciting mutually exclusive characteristics … fail to establish on the record that the claims of alleged Species 1 and 2 recite mutually exclusive characteristics. This is not found persuasive therefore the restriction has been maintained for the reason below:
Species 1 requires first/second polarization structures and first voltage is different from the second voltage. While Species 2 requires first/second liquid crystal and adjust voltage to image the center/edge area of the target. Obviously, Species 1 and Species 2 require different search with serious burden.
Applicants have rights to peruse prosecution of the unelected invention Species 2 in claims 6-7, 15-16, 19-20, by filing a Divisional Application of the current Application in the future.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/24 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings/
4. The drawings filed on 04/01/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479). Hereafter “Choi” and “Qin”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Choi teaches an imaging system (page 1, Background-Art) comprising:
a first polarization structure configured to polarize light provided from a light source into first polarized light (Figures 1, 2, a first polarization structure 400, a light source 10);
a meta-lens on which the first polarized light is incident (Figure 1, a meta-lens 100);
a second polarization structure configured to convert the first polarized light that passes through the meta-lens into second polarized light (Figures 1, 2, a second polarization structure 500, meta-lens 100);
an image sensor configured to sense the second polarized light (Figures 1, 2, an image sensor 200).
However, Choi does not teach first/second polarization structure responsive to a first/second voltage; first/second power supply connected to the first/second polarization structure, and the first/second power supply is configured to apply the voltage to the first/second polarization structure; and the first voltage and the second voltage are different from each other. Qin teaches first/second polarization structure responsive to a first/second voltage; first/second power supply connected to the first/second polarization structure, and the first/second power supply is configured to apply the voltage to the first/second polarization structure; and the first voltage and the second voltage are different from each other ([0035], lines 19-32; [0037], lines 1-6, 18-28; [0040], lines 11-30; [0041], lines 8-17; Figures 4, 6, liquid crystal units TN1, TN2, are not different from first/second polarization structures. There must be the first/second power supply in order to provide voltage for TN1/TN2. Further, voltage is applied to the twisted nematic liquid crystal unit TN1, and no voltage is applied to the twisted nematic liquid crystal unit TN2, is not different from the first voltage and the second voltage are different from each other). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi by applying the different voltage to the first/second polarization structure in order to have different polarized light beam ([0035], lines 19-32; [0037], lines 1-6, 18-28; [0040], lines 11-30; [0041], lines 8-17).
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Qin disclose all elements of the claimed invention, as is noted in claim 1 above. The difference between the claimed invention and the Choi and Qin device is the position of the lens and polarization structure. Claim 8 recites an objective lens and a tube lens between the meta-lens and the second polarization structure, whereas Choi disclose the objective lens is between the meta-lens the second polarization structure and light source. Although the Choi and Qin device does not teach the exact the position of the lens and polarization structure as that claimed by Applicant, the position differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. Additionally, the Applicant has presented no discussion in the specification which convinces the Examiner that the particular position of the lens and polarization structure is anything more than one of numerous position a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing support. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
7. Claim(s) 2, 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Jamali et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,598,964). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Jamali”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 4, Choi and Qin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the first/second polarized light is left- circularly polarized light (LCP), and the second/first polarized light is right-circularly polarized light (RCP). Jamali teaches the first/second polarized light is left- circularly polarized light LCP, and the second/first polarized light is right-circularly polarized light RCP, (column 15, lines 8-19; Column 19, lines 40-53; Column 24, lines 15-30; Column 25, lines 29-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi and Qin by having left- circularly polarized light and right-circularly polarized light in order to enhance accommodation for inspection system.
8. Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Jamali et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,598,964), further in view of Egner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0024063). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Jamali”, “Egner”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 5, Choi and Qin and Jamali teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for intensity of light sensed by the image sensor has a point shape and donut shape. Egner teaches intensity of light sensed by the image sensor has a point shape and donut shape, ([0013, 0042, 0053, 0054, 0093]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi and Qin and Jamali by having intensity of light sensed by the image sensor has a point shape and donut shape in order to have expected intensity distributions for inspection, (Egner, [0013, 0042, 0053, 0054, 0093]).
9. Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Yasuno et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0199116). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Yasuno”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, 10, Choi and Qin teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the first/second polarization structure is configured to change a phase of the first/second polarized light based on an intensity of the first/second voltage. Yasuno teaches the polarization structure is configured to change a phase of the polarized light based on an intensity of the voltage, ([0047, 0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi and Qin by changing a phase of the polarized light based on an intensity of the voltage in order to have expected polarized light, (Yasuno, [0047, 0055]).
10. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Yata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0221284). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Yata”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Choi and Quin teach an imaging inspection apparatus comprising: a first polarization structure configured to polarize the measurement light into first polarized light; a first power supply connected to the first polarization structure, and the first power supply configured to apply a voltage to the first polarization structure; a meta-lens on which the first polarized light is incident; a second polarization structure configured to convert the first polarized light that passes through the meta-lens into second polarized light; a second power supply connected to the second polarization structure, and the second power supply is configured to apply a voltage to the second polarization structure; and an image sensor configured to sense the second polarized light, and wherein responsive to when a first voltage being applied to the first power supply and a second voltage different from the first voltage being applied to the second power supply, as indicated in claim 1 above.
However, Choi and Quin do not teach a light source configured to irradiate measurement light toward the measurement target, wherein the measurement target is interposed between the lens and the polarization structure, wherein the measurement target includes a center area and an edge area surrounding the center area. Yata teaches a light source configured to irradiate measurement light toward the measurement target, wherein the measurement target is interposed between the lens and the first polarization structure, wherein the measurement target includes a center area and an edge area surrounding the center area, (figure 1, light source BL, LCD 50 is not different from a measurement target, lens 30, polarizing plate 13. It is inherent that LCD 50 includes center area and an edge area surrounding the center area). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi and Qin by having the measurement target interposed between the lens and the polarization structure in order to focus expected light to the target, (Yata, figure 1).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Choi teaches the edge area of the measurement target is imaged (page 2, lines 32-38). Qin disclosed the limitation “the second/first voltage being applied to the first/second power supply, and the first/second voltage being applied to the first/second power supply” indicated as in claim 1 above.
11. Claim(s) 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Yata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0221284), further in view of Jamali et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,598,964). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Yata”, “Jamali”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, 14, Choi, Qin, Yata, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the first/second polarized light is left- circularly polarized light (LCP), and the second/first polarized light is right-circularly polarized light (RCP). Jamali teaches the first/second polarized light is left- circularly polarized light LCP, and the second/first polarized light is right-circularly polarized light RCP, (column 15, lines 8-19; Column 19, lines 40-53; Column 24, lines 15-30; Column 25, lines 29-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi, Qin, Yata, by having left- circularly polarized light and right-circularly polarized light in order to enhance accommodation for inspection system.
12. Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi Kihong et al. (KR 20210061292) in view of Qin et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20220055479), further in view of Yata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0221284), further in view of Yasuno et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0199116). Hereafter “Choi”, “Qin”, “Yasuno”. (Please see attached files for Choi’s reference).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, 18, Choi, Qin, Yata, teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the first/second polarization structure is configured to change a phase of the first/second polarized light based on an intensity of the first/second voltage. Yasuno teaches the polarization structure is configured to change a phase of the polarized light based on an intensity of the voltage, ([0047, 0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Choi, Qin, Yata, by changing a phase of the polarized light based on an intensity of the voltage in order to have expected polarized light, (Yasuno, [0047, 0055]).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. 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.